This is the part 2 of the following thread:
I currently own 24-70 II, 70-200 II and 35L with 85L to compliment those zooms. I love all my lenses, except I'd like my pictures from the 70-200 around 150-200mm, which is where I use it the most, to look like the ones from 85L (I hope that makes sense). I'm not a professional and I know for many people even my current lens line-up is pretty amazing (for an amateur) and I'm sure I'm going to be criticized for considering a 6k lens on top of an already pretty decent zoom. That being said, if everyone can forget all of that nonsense aside and be constructive in this thread, I'd really appreciate it! I'm aware of what many will say and that's not why I'm here, I'm looking for technical/scientific/professional feedback on these two lenses.
I will be mainly using this lens in low light/outdoors (I don't think I'd use it over 35L & 85L indoors) and mainly kids/family portraits.
I went to B&H today and tested this lens out and compared it with my zoom. At 2.8, there is barely any difference between the two lenses. If I look at the pictures at 100% crop, I can see some difference, but it's not easy to say. The prime wide open is another story though. For subjects that are far away, the bokeh and the 3D effect is just amazing. It's like my 85L in stereoids. Not to mention, the lens being 2x fast makes a big difference. The pictures I shot with my zoom at ISO 12800 looks like crap compared to the ones that came out of the prime with ISO 6400. Lastly, I didn't get a chance to use the lens outdoors where it will probably produce amazing pictures with great color.
If you compare the prime to the zoom pixel by pixel at the same aperture, it's definitely not worth the extra cost. That being said, prime is meant to be used wide open, for great subject isolation. I guess the only reason to use this lens over the zoom is bokeh + 2x light.
It is very heavy yes and big (and does look ugly), but is it worth it? Part of me says yes, I really don't know