70-200 f2.8 IS MKII non-professional owner - how much use?

Mines on one of my bodies all the time. At the minute it's on my 5D3 while my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 USM is on my 7D and they both stay in my bag like that. The only time either one comes off is for aviation or wildlife shots, usually with my Sigma 150-500 OS, and generally the 70-200 stays on the other body.

I use mine a lot, in fact I use the 70-200 II and 24mm II so much that I haven't put the 15-85 on my 60D for months. It's a pretty heavy lens but I don't mind taking it with me when I'm out shooting.

Mine should arrive tomorrow but I have rented it twice this year, I never took it off. I love that lens

I opted for the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens lens because of its lighter weight. I can carry the f/4L IS lens mounted on a second 1.6x camera at the same weight as the f/2.8L (series) lens alone. I am glad that the f/4L IS lens is less expensive than the f/2.8L IS (series) lens. If it were more expensive than the f/2.8L model, I would have had a really difficult decision to make.

BTW: This is my favorite lens. I use it for all sorts of imagery including shots like this...

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …604201&k=rgjLz8​K&lb=1&s=A

I think there are a lot of lenses that are more useful than the 70-200 II, but I really believe it is the most impressive lens in Canon's lineup. If you are just starting out with a DSLR, this is probably the third lens you should buy and not the first.

I use it about half the time…great lens at F2.8

It's always in my bag, but I only use it ~10% of the time.

spear wrote in post #15318895
I think there are a lot of lenses that are more useful than the 70-200 II, but I really believe it is the most impressive lens in Canon's lineup. If you are just starting out with a DSLR, this is probably the third lens you should buy and not the first.

What are the first two?

I dont leave home without it. While it is not used on every shoot I remain impressed by the IQ it delivers. Just stunningly sharp. Took some pics of a dog today from across the street - you would think I was standing next to it. I had a tough time justifying the expense - but I would never give it up!

While evaluating this lens through CPS, I didn't have much in the way of jobs to really test the lens, which I really regret. What I don't regret is how useful it was in regular day to day use. Just going to random sporting events this lens never failed me. I find myself using longer focal lengths now instead of just using my wide and normal lenses like I usually do. It's such a joy to be able to use the same lens for portraits and sports without a single hitch. I even got comfortable enough with this in the couple weeks I had it to take it indoors to a couple family events and get some great keepers in terrible lighting. For me, it's incredibly hard to find a lens with such a wow factor (for me) and such a small learning curve.

inspectoring wrote in post #15319193
What are the first two?

It all depends on what type of pictures you take. For me the first lens I got was a 24-105 and then my second lens was a 50mm @ 1.4 for those times were you simply needed a very fast lens for indoor photos in low light. If you take a lot of landscape photos then maybe a wide angle prime or even the 16-35 ii would be a good choice. Another great choice would be a 24-70 ii f2.8 lens ... but without IS, Canon just killed me with that. I really had great hopes for the 24-70ii and it would have been the perfect "one" lens solution for still photography and video.

One great thing about the 70-200 f2.8 lens is that with a 1.4x or 2.0x multiplier, you can move it up to a long zoom lens and still have AF work natively. The optics are so good that I am pretty sure IQ will be very good even with a multiplier.

It is an awesome lens. One of my favorites. But ever since I got the 200L IS the 70-200 kinda stays at home. Some days I think about that and feel bad so I bring the 70-200 instead and I get that revitalized feeling about the lens. It is just awesome and worth it to have.

For the last year or two I've used my 70-200 2.8II A LOT with my 7D. Every racetrack visit (with TC's as needed), zoo trip, photoshoot outside with my daughter, waterskiing shots of my wife, etc. Probably 25k pictures.

HOWEVER- a few months ago I got a great deal on a new 70-300L and picked it up, figuring if I didn't use it much I could sell it for around what I paid for it, and I had been curious about it. I gotta say- the 70-200 hasn't gotten as much use. Went to the Formula 1 race down in Austin, and the combo of the 70-300L and my 400 f/5.6L was a perfect lightweight setup to put in a small hiking backpack, with great IQ. Thing is- the 70-200 is so irreplaceable due to it's f/2.8 IQ and range, with and without TC's. I can't bring myself to sell it, even though I question the logic of having both the 70-200 & the 70-300L.

It is one of my most used lenses. I carry it around for family outings and vacations, despite the weight.

I use mine 95% of the time. It stays on my gripped 7D in a Think Tank digital holster and is always with me. Weight is NEVER an issue. I also keep a 2X TC close by and sometimes leave a 1.4X mounted. My fav lens and I have several. My next fav is the 70-200 f4!