I can't speak to the 200 2.8 specifically for sports, but I have been happy with the overall performance of the lens. Fast focus, sharp, compact. I've been quite happy with it as my only telephoto since switching to full frame.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.
You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.
I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???" They claim those lenses are great for background separation. You know what else is? ANY lens and a knowledge of composition. I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens. You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end. But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.
I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider. You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things. Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more.
Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.
Not sure where you are or what available there, but home improvement stores here have halogen work lights that are relatively inexpensive ($20) and a couple of them would provide ample light.Those would definitely work well and I always feel silly using my Einsteins' modeling lights for FoCal tests.
which leads me to the next (obvious) question
Is there any advantage for Still Photographers to use cine lenses?
I just simply cannot believe in the fanthom 24-70/2 Art lens. Look at the current 2.8 offering - size and weight. Do you really want 1,5 kg lens with 86+mm front lens diameter? I'm glad with ~800g of the current 24-70/2.8L II, even still, sometimes feels a bit on the heavier size.
three legged thing (3LT) brian. A fantastic travel carbon fiber tripod. I used with my 5d3 + 70-200 no issues. Super light, super strong.
Plus one of the legs unscrews and it becomes an extremely light monopod
This question is related to one that I have.
I was thinking of packing my old Rebel with a kit lens in my trunk, so I always had something with me. Do I have to worry too much about heat damage or are these cameras designed to take that kind of abuse?
The only thing I would worry about is the battery. I'd leave it out of the camera. Also, humidity is important.. You don't want foggy lens when you pull it out. I'm sure too much hear isn't good for any camera though.
I don't have the bodies you are interested in but do own the 18-200mm lens. Fine lens, but it does have distortion at the 18mm range so I'd be pairing it with the new 10-18mm if I didn't already have a better lens in the 18mm range. I'd consider bringing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for nicer portraits and it doesn't add much weight (or even the pancake 40mm).