About the f/2 zooms: I prefer size/weight advantage of f/4 and f/2.8 over f/2. But great, that Canon offers both/all three lines.
Agreed.
In the 90s we NEEDED an f/2.8 trinity. Even 100 speed film was nowhere near as sharp and low noise/grain as ISO 5000 is now, so the option to halve your ISO was always attractive. Likewise, no IS or IBIS so you wanted a shutter of like 1/200 even for 50mm and again, the option to halve your shutter was always attractive. Meanwhile, due to unsharp lenses, bad AF or manual focus, camera movement unsharpness and film grain, you couldn't make your photos too big, so the bokeh of f/2.8 was great to give some pop at an image size of like 2.5x4cm/1x1.5".
Today we can almost always double shutter speed and have an equally attractive photo. IS lets you hand-hold to absurd lengths* so you don't need fast shutter. Lenses are sharp enough you can count eyelashes, and the sensor MP record it. Nearly every photo can be considered 25x40cm/10x15" for these reasons, and at that size, even f/4 gives a lot of pop to a subject. Indeed, opening up much wider risks making the bokeh the topic of the photo, not the putative subject. So, I've been thinking since I bought one of the first R's, that the trinity these days is f/4. I shoot the 14-35, 24-105, and the 100-500/4.5-7.1 which I basically consider a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4xTC with an optional 2.0xTC.
I've always loved aperture and owned the 50/1.0 and 85/1.2 from the day I got started in Canon and the 135/2 when it went on sale. I had the 2.8 trinity and probably did at least three upgrades as newer variations came out. I still have a 28/1.4 and 135/1.8, but for me these are special-use. (I have the 50/1.8 mounted in my backpack any time you see me out of the house, too.) But for just recording what's happening, f/4 I think is where it's at.
