I have seen so many fantastic reviews on this lens, pin sharp, build quality exceptional, IQ incredible, super fast auto focus, quiet, reliable, sports, weddings, events it does the lot ! So i have been thinking, do I really need my 200mm 2.8 L, 100mm 2.8L, and 17-55 2.8 canon when I could do the same with with the 70-200L 2.8 mk II and my 24-105L lens. with my 50mm as trusty emergency back up.
So thinking of trading the 200mm and the 17-55 in possibly throwing in the 100mm 2.8 too although I will miss the macro. but if this lens lives up to the billing by many many reviewers and owners, then just have 3 lenses in the bag which should cover most eventualities....
Just wanted to gauge the thoughts of other photographers out there
I too have the 70-200 2.8 mk2 IS and the 100 2.8 IS L but certainly wouldn't trade in the 100mm. There are occasions when I go out solely to shoot headshots so the 100mm is perfect and doesn't weigh the half hundredweight the zoom weighs. It is of course a fantastic macro lens as well.
I would lose the 17-55 and the 200mm prime, keep the rest and get the 70-200 - its worth every penny.
How fit are you? I have the previous lens and it is a beautiful machine but boy is it a beast! You may not notice that too much during a one hour shoot. At the end of an eight to ten hour day of none stop shooting though it will start to tell.
In the studio these days nearly all my work is done on the 24-110 IS-L Much lighter, quite fast enough for studio flash and a better range. I don't regret buying the other though. Indeed I'm thinking of going back to it for some sessions so I can shoot at 2.8
I have the EF 70-200 f2.8L MkII, it is claim to be much better suited to the 50MP 5Ds so don't be surprise if prices starting to rise when these cameras start shipping. It is much sharper than the Mk1 and CA is better but the bokeh is not as smooth. The EF 100mm f2.8L Macro has a very nice bokeh and really shows up the EF 70-200 MKII so I will not trade this lens.