I have the 70-200/2.8II - and it is my least used lens - maybe 6 times in 2 years - I had the same thought about selling it about a month ago but haven't gotten around to taking pictures of it, etc. In the last year I have started using primes more and more. Even my 24-120 is seeing less and less use these days. My Zeiss 100MP and a Nikon 35 1.4 stay on the camera the most - but even the Zeiss is being used less as manual focus for me is getting harder and harder. Guess I'll have to go to the Sig 85 soon. I have the Nikon 50/1.8g but finding I don't really like the results (no pizzazz) as much as the 100 or the 35 - both are superb.
I had the VR2 and sold it. Also sold & bought the VR1 about 5 times. As others mentioned, it's the only lens that does the job when I need it, but I don't need it often. I mainly need it for weddings and when I need reach in low light. I have the 85 1.4 but sometimes that's not enough. The Zeiss 21 2.8, Sigma 35 1.4, Zeiss 50/2 and 85 1.4 cover 90% of my needs, now I rent the remaining 10%
I have the VR2, but it gets little use. I much prefer primes. However, there are times when the 70-200 exactly what's needed and it does a fabulous job, and that's why it still has a home in my collection... until Nikon or Sigma releases a 135 1.8.
Well, both my 70-200f2.8 and my 200f2 rarely get used but they are high value lenses, I love them when I do use them, and I know that if I were to sell them with the view that I could always buy again it would be hard as they are very expensive. I'm of the mindset that I have them now and should hold on to them.
My Sigma 35mm f1.4 is now my fave lens by a mile and my most used, closely followed by my 85 f1.4 which I still struggle to get on with after all this time.
yeah, same reasons for me as most, which is unfortunate after paying $2400. think I need to just overcome the mental part of why i choose to let it sit so much, damn thing is incredible
Steve Perry wrote:
My 70-200 sits unused most of the time - but - there are times it's JUST what I need and nothing else will do. I've thought about selling it, but then I end up grateful I own it. Maybe one day I'll switch to an F4, but for now I'm keeping the 2.8.
This is the exact same thing for me. I do not use it much, but when I do I am glad that I have it, it's a gem!
I skipped the f/2.8 altogether in favor of the f/4 as size/weight was a big enough factor in my gear choices that it simply couldn't be overlooked. I've only had a couple of situations where I've thought to myself "You know Kendall, you really screwed yourself by not getting the f/2.8," but I can easily live with cranking the ISO up an extra stop (of course this doesn't do anything for subject isolation, but I digress). I will say that my back loves this decision every time I go hiking and it has enabled me to carry a much smaller bag on the couple of trips I've been on since I bought it.
This thread has made me decide that I will go out for a shoot with the 70-200f2.8 this weekend. I may in fact take no other lenses and force myself to work with it.
I know I will be blown away with the results as always for she is a superb piece of glass.
It's my money lens (as well as the VR before it) and anytime I start thinkin' it's on the heavy side...
I shoot with the 200 f2 until that feeling subsides. Awesome lens, go out and shoot with it and
if you don't come back with some WOW shots then sell it. They'll bury me with mine.
I had the 70-200 VRII for two years and I've always complained that it's too heavy and such a pain to lug around. I don't make a single penny doing this so I decided to sell it and buy a 200 f/2 VR! I found that it feels lighter than the 70-200! Maybe it's the shape that's playing tricks on me, but the 70-200 really felt heavier, so I didn't use it much. The 200/2 is a joy to use all the time, everytime.
DontShoot wrote:
I had the 70-200 VRII for two years and I've always complained that it's too heavy and such a pain to lug around. I don't make a single penny doing this so I decided to sell it and buy a 200 f/2 VR! I found that it feels lighter than the 70-200! Maybe it's the shape that's playing tricks on me, but the 70-200 really felt heavier, so I didn't use it much. The 200/2 is a joy to use all the time, everytime. I want some of what you're smokin' It's over 3 lbs heavier!
i had a 70-200mm VR2 which I sold. It was a great copy and the output made me smile most of the time. But it was a bear to lug aroun. Like you i found myself most of the time leaving it back at home. So sold it and dont regret it.
The 70-200 f/4 looks like a nice alternative ! I may get it at some point.
trenchmonkey wrote: I want some of what you're smokin' It's over 3 lbs heavier!
Puff puff give my friend. I'm seconds on that when you work out what he's smoking!
I can hand hold the 70-200f2.8 all day on my D4 (which is a heavy camera) without any aches whatsoever. Put the 200f2 on the D4 and I have around 10 mins before the ache sets in.
I want some of what you're smokin' 
It's over 3 lbs heavier! 