Due to its weight I wouldn't use it for landscape or wildlife either. I´d use it for events such as birthday parties, weddings, anniversary, family get to together and portrait stuff. I wouldn't use it for travel as well. There are better suited and lighter lenses for it.
I did a landscape workshop some years back and i mostly had fast primes with me. EF 16-35mm II f2.8 L, EF 24mm f1.4 II L, EF 35mm f1.4 L, EF 50mm f1.2L, EF 85mm f1.2 II L, EF 135mm f2.0 L and a pair of teleconverters. I got some really good portfolio worthy shots, however i had the heaviest bag of the group and I was constantly swapping lenses. These days I have a far lighter and more convienient landscape kit.
I'm open to a 200/2 long end, but that would put the lens in the price (and weight) bracket of the 100-300/2.8 instead of the 70-200/2.8. I suspect it's far more likely we'll see a lens that ends at 150/2 vs. 200/2.70-200 f/2 or GTFO!
Yeah, it could share parts and casing with the 100-300mm f/2.8 and could even be a bit brighter say f/1.970-200 f/2 or GTFO!
Uber rich? Why? I know plenty that own big white Canon tele lenses and are just regular folks. Yes, it's a big investment, but if you're a pro or a serious enthusiast, these aren't THAT expensive. I mean, HIFI freaks out there pay 3x as much for a set of speakers or an amp.
I‘d rather have a 70-140mm F2 and keep it in the 3500 $/ € area and then have a legendary halo lens return as the RF 200mm F1.8
Looking at a 500mm diameter front element there....it would dwarf even the green Bigma in size.I was going to joke that this would have to borrow a front element from a lighthouse.
Then I checked, and even the largest lighthouse lens would be too small.
I agree, this lens 70-140ish /f2.0 lens is in the "it's a variation of the 70-200/f2.8" ball park. Size, weight, price and use case scenario.I‘d rather have a 70-140mm F2 and keep it in the 3500 $/ € area and then have a legendary halo lens return as the RF 200mm F1.8
70-200 f/2 or GTFO!
