Enablers and devil's advocates, come hither (200mm 2L IS)

I am having a hard time not justifying this lens but I want to get ears of a couple people so I know my logic in reasoning this purchase is valid.

I do a lot of portraiture photography -- some natural; some OCF. I also enjoy low-light photography a lot but seeing as the 1Ds II isn't exactly fantastic at high ISO settings, I feel the four-to-five stop IS compensation make it even more valuable in daily use.

Just looking for some thoughts. That's all.

Feel free to check my gear list if you want further insight on what I am already using.

Hobby or profession?

who cares if it's a hobby or profession~ haha

If you want it and can afford it why not?

Now that's some enabling!

Profession.

it is a gorgeous lens

paradiddleluke wrote in post #10494607
it is a gorgeous lens

That...it is.

Ok, there are 3 scenarios here.

1) you can't really afford the lens but think it looks cool and really want it....don't buy it
2) you aren't a professional, but can easily afford the lens, so there isn't really much to decide on....buy it
3) you are a professional and need the lens to capture shots you are unable to right now...buy it.

If you need the lens for your business and have the funds available to buy it, do so.

Do you think it will improve your photography and make a solid return on investment?

If it was a hobby, and you've got a ton of money to blow, go for it.

you'll have to have the 135 F2 and the 85 f1.2 ii, having used these lens, and say "no, these just won't cut the mustard for what i do" to justify the need.

or have a boat load of money and don't care

you know, when it comes to 4 stop IS i always have to wonder. when doing portraits up to a certain shutter speed you'll be getting motion blur. so in a low light portrait senario, just how valuable is a 4 stop IS anyways.

banpreso wrote in post #10494731
you'll have to have the 135 F2 and the 85 f1.2 ii, having used these lens, and say "no, these just won't cut the mustard for what i do" to justify the need.

or have a boat load of money and don't care

you know, when it comes to 4 stop IS i always have to wonder. when doing portraits up to a certain shutter speed you'll be getting motion blur. so in a low light portrait senario, just how valuable is a 4 stop IS anyways.

Owned and used still use one (135mm 2L) of those lenses. The IS apparently works in a way that is actually noticeable in comparison to older generations of IS. I have heard from 1/10th-1/20th handheld shots being done no problem.

Anything to cut down on the ISO helps man.

I shoot candids consistently at 1/40 of a sec and occaisionally get really good results at 1/15th if I time it right for the shutter to release when the subject is not moving and its probably the sharpest or one of the top 3 sharpest lenses in the Canon line up. Every other Canon lens I own looks soft next to this puppy. I've shot with the 300 2.8 and the 400 2.8 and this lens is as sharp as they are.

I can't get consistent hand help shots with either the 135L or the 85L at 1/40th and this has a shallower DoF and the best bokeh of any Canon lens I've shot with with maybe the 400 2.8 being the exception when it comes to bokeh.

I think the 200 f2 is very hard to justify over the new 70-200 F2.8 unless you REALLY need f2. That new zoom is just so "prime-sharp".

tkbslc wrote in post #10494772
I think the 200 f2 is very hard to justify over the new 70-200 F2.8 unless you REALLY need f2. That new zoom is just so "prime-sharp".

Yeah and the 200 2L is sharper and a stop faster. 1 stop is a lot of light when you need it.

tkbslc wrote in post #10494772
I think the 200 f2 is very hard to justify over the new 70-200 F2.8 unless you REALLY need f2. That new zoom is just so "prime-sharp".

I'm more interested in the 21-70mm focal length than the 70-200mm range; especially when considering a zoom purchase. I also would prefer to have a 200mm prime with a 'faster' aperture than 2.8 and have found comfort in f/2 land with Canon once before. I want this prime because I have seen the depth-of-field it can deliver. The IS a perk if anything, but the 200mm 2L IS is notoriously sharp at every aperture.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10494783
Yeah and the 200 2L is sharper and a stop faster. 1 stop is a lot of light when you need it.

It's not sharper in any kind of way that would show up in pictures. You are losing zoom range and about $3500 for that one stop. If you really, really need it and it will pay for itself by getting shots you can't get at 2.8, then it is worth it. Otherwise, I think most people would be happier with the zoom.

So not really arguing with you, just throwing that out there.