Heavy Zoom, practical or not?

I have been using the 70-200 2.8L IS for several years now. I can truthfully say that although I respect this lens I do not think I really like it. It is sharp, it is reasonably fast and the Focal Range is, oh well debatable.
This lens is heavy and take a lot of bag space.
Since I have started using a 24-70 2.8L as my walk around on camera lens I have never touched the 70-200 again and have taken it out of my bag.
That makes me wonder how practical a "heavy" 70-200 really is.
I find the 24-70 much more practical, the FL range is perfectly suited for portraits(head shots or full body), group photo's, landscapes, W/A shots, indoor photography and the weight is a breeze.
I am seriously considering getting rid of the 70-200 now as I just do not use it anymore. I would rather replace it with a 85 1.2L just to have a good low light lens rather that will be used.
I am just interested to hear what other 70-200 users think on how practical this lens really is. Maybe I am just not seeing something.

Well, obviously it's more practical then the 24-70 if you need the 200mm FL

You could off course give one of the f/4 versions a try, or the 200mm prime... Both are a lot lighter.

René Damkot wrote in post #3718056
Well, obviously it's more practical then the 24-70 if you need the 200mm FL

You could off course give one of the f/4 versions a try, or the 200mm prime... Both are a lot lighter.

Part of my point, could maybe be restricted to my kind of photography, I do not find much use for 200mm FL. 300 or 400 maybe but not 200. This is on FF.

I use mine quite a bit and find it to be a convenient range. I also don't find it all that heavy (it's the heaviest lens I currently own but not the heaviest I've had. I'm not much of a tripod person so I'm pretty much always using it handheld. It's a particularly useful lens for sports photography and it's also served me well at weddings and other occasions when I'm shooting headshots.
However, if you find you aren't using it, then it's probably time to move on to something else. I find it to be very practical, but YMMV. Just because I (or anyone else) uses it a lot and raves about the quality doesn't mean that you need to as well.

your answer is so clear! since you're not using it, trade it up for something else.

It sounds to me like you've already decided you don't "need" it. I tend to agree with others here, if it's not getting and use then it may be time for it to go, but that's such a hard thing to say with such a nice piece of glass. However from everything I've read the f4 version is spectacular - even better in color reproduction and sharpness than the f2.8. If I were you, I'd probably think about getting the 70-200 f4L IS. It's smaller and lighter, reported to have great image quality, and will do almost everything the f2.8 will do except sports or really fast moving/low light objects.

You could then take the cash and put it towards something like the 17-40 f4L for those "I need wide" situations and have even greater coverage.

Thanks for replies, maybe I will just keep it safely stored for a while and sees what happens. I might need it someday again as it is a very good lens, if not I will find a good home for it. I do not mind a heavy lens as long as it is not just dead weight in the bag. My 500 does not bother me but that is not dead weight as it is a working lens.