Canon 70 200 2.8L USM

the 2.8 is a sick lens. my cousin's wife is a studio photog and lets me borrow lenses from time to time and this is definately one that i'd pick up. i've done a lot of portrait and low light long exposure work with it, and the speed definately helps when it comes to low light portraiting; clarity is...it's an L, that should be enough.

i personally use the 70-200 f/4.0 and i've found it to be enough for my needs. it's more compact than the 2.8, and quality is just as good, it just lacks those 2 extra stops. the 2.8 also has 2 UD elements whereas the 4.0 has a UD and a fluorite - fluorite is better in terms of clarity as opposed to UD, so i suppose it gives the 4.0 an edge.

the one thing i've heard my cousin's wife complain about is the weight - the thing is about 1.4 kilos, so it may be huge and sexy, but it can be a bitch to lug around from shoot to shoot and the weight can take its toll on your arms if you're doing a full days work. other than that, it's one of the best lenses i've used.