Give me reasons to by the 200 f/2

[jaayres20]

I am a wedding photographer and I already have a lot of great gear that helps me do my job well. I have a 1DX, a 5D3, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 24-70L II, 85mm 1.2L, 50mm 1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, 90mm f/2.8 TS, and I just picked up the 300mm f/4L IS. I obviously have everything I need to do a good job at any wedding, however I just like to buy gear and get the best I can as long as I can justify buying it. Sure it would be really nice to have the 400mm f/2.8 for when I am stuck in the balcony of the church but I can't justify the price of the lens for that reason.

I am so close to buying the 200mm f/2 but I am actually having a hard time justifying the price. I have looked into it so much and I know it is superb, but will it be worth the $6000? I don't know? I love to shoot wide open and I love lens compression. I shoot with the 85 at 1.2 always and I try to stand back and use my 70-200 at 200mm or sometimes I even use the 300mm for portraits.

I also like the 300mm for when I am stuck in the back of the church during ceremonies, but I would probably have to sell it if I picked up the 200 f/2. I am curious how the 200 f/2 would preform with the 1.4xIII or 2xIII teleconverters in terms of IQ in relation to the 300 f/4L. I am not terribly concerned about focus speed because the 300 f/4 isn't super fast and I mostly use it when everything is still.

Anyone have any thoughts? Especially those of you who use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the 200mm f/2. Also if by chance any of you have any knowledge on how the IQ of the 200mm f/2 with the 1.4III teleconverter relates to the 300mm f/4L?

 

[Ruined]

1. You want it.
2. I assume you can afford it, given your post, and you would prefer a new lens over $6000 of something else.
3. Life is short, enjoy it.

 

[Grumbaki]

That's on the short list of lens I want to try...but not buy as, an amateur, I could never justify the 6k.

Others will speak about the comparison with teleconverter but I want to point out that, as a professionnal, you can make the expense worth it, especially if your average clientiele is able to see/understand, not only in the pictures but also during the shooting, that you use top class gear.

Short version: if you are already in the upper or upper middle market, the cost will be absorbed partly as public relation (or cred) bonus.

 

[Jim Saunders]

In your shoes I'd see which of your lenses you use the most and get backup copies before I get a 200 f/2. After that...

Jim

 

[ksagomonyants]

You can get used 200 2.0 much cheaper than at $6000. Check ebay or fredmiranda, I've seen several offers just recently for ~$4100-4500. Recently there was a great deal on refurbished 200 2.0 on Canon's website too, so you may pick it up when it's available.

 

[David_in_Seattle]

I am a wedding photographer and I already have a lot of great gear that helps me do my job well. I have a 1DX, a 5D3, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 24-70L II, 85mm 1.2L, 50mm 1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, 90mm f/2.8 TS, and I just picked up the 300mm f/4L IS. I obviously have everything I need to do a good job at any wedding, however I just like to buy gear and get the best I can as long as I can justify buying it. Sure it would be really nice to have the 400mm f/2.8 for when I am stuck in the balcony of the church but I can't justify the price of the lens for that reason.

I am so close to buying the 200mm f/2 but I am actually having a hard time justifying the price. I have looked into it so much and I know it is superb, but will it be worth the $6000? I don't know? I love to shoot wide open and I love lens compression. I shoot with the 85 at 1.2 always and I try to stand back and use my 70-200 at 200mm or sometimes I even use the 300mm for portraits.

I also like the 300mm for when I am stuck in the back of the church during ceremonies, but I would probably have to sell it if I picked up the 200 f/2. I am curious how the 200 f/2 would preform with the 1.4xIII or 2xIII teleconverters in terms of IQ in relation to the 300 f/4L. I am not terribly concerned about focus speed because the 300 f/4 isn't super fast and I mostly use it when everything is still.

Anyone have any thoughts? Especially those of you who use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the 200mm f/2. Also if by chance any of you have any knowledge on how the IQ of the 200mm f/2 with the 1.4III teleconverter relates to the 300mm f/4L?

I had a similar dilemma, though I don't shoot weddings. I was faced with the decision of the 300 f2.8 IS or the 200 f2 IS. I already had the 70-200 f2.8 IS v2 so I ended up going for the 300mm because of the additional focal length and same aperture. The 200 f2 IS is an amazing lens and if I were exclusively a fashion or portrait photographer it would definitely be on my must have list. Instead, I'm a life style & travel photographer and the added focal length of the 300mm made photographing things in a helicopter or tour bus much easier. Sure, I could probably added a teleconverter to the 200 for added range, but the same is true with the 300.

Ultimately I ended up purchasing the 300mm f2.8 first...then a couple years later I bought the 200m f.2 because I started doing more portraiture outside of my day job.