Well, I finally got the lens, and had a chance to play with it.

This thing is surprisingly heavy. Not 400 f/2.8 heavy, yet somehow it's almost as difficult to wield. The f/1.8, over a full stop faster than my 70-200 f/2.8, is a big advantage in low light. The compression of a 200mm focal length, combined with 3200/6400 ISO, make for shots impossible with any other combination. My 85mm f/1.2 is about a stop faster still, but the reduced compression, the shorter focal length, and ridiculously shallow depth of field (not that the 200 is easy to shoot with, just easier) make the lens a very different tool. Do they complement each other? I think so, as there's little if any overlap in suitability of these lenses.

I'll continue to shoot with the 200, and see if it's worth keeping. It's a pricey piece of glass, and I'm worried I won't find it nearly as useful as the 400 I recently got.

Here are some sample pics that should demonstrate some of this lens' capabilities. EXIFs are intact.

oontz! Enjoy your lead glass!

dayum, I wanna rob your house while you're not home.....

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

dayum, I wanna rob your house while you're not home.....

Rob my hotel room instead, it's where most of my stuff is right now

Mini-review is up.

that lens is rather sharp!

I wanna see a pic of the lens. Maybe shoot it with your 85 f/1.2?

Originally Posted by emorphien

that lens is rather sharp!

Yeah, it is. It's supposedly Canon's sharpest, but then again I've heard the same thing about several other lenses, so... whatever, I just like the results with f/1.8 when the focus is right.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I wanna see a pic of the lens. Maybe shoot it with your 85 f/1.2?

It'll be a couple of days before I get a chance. I'm all packed, and ready to go back home. Leaving DC and going home to SC tomorrow. Google has plenty of pics though. Just think of a very fat and heavy 70-200.

Oh sure, I could GIS it, but I wanna see your lens.

mind if I ask what they sell for since you can only get them used now?
Also with safe search off the second row in GIS has a nice shot in it...

Something about that lens. I just love how ridiculous the front element looks.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Oh sure, I could GIS it, but I wanna see your lens.

No problem. I might actually be a 2nd shooter at a wedding this Sunday, so without the pressure of being first, I'll probably experiment with the 200, and get shots of it as well.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

mind if I ask what they sell for since you can only get them used now?
Also with safe search off the second row in GIS has a nice shot in it...

Something about that lens. I just love how ridiculous the front element looks.

The average seems to be around $4,500, with some selling as low as $3,500, and as high as $5,000.

The Sigmonster has a pretty big front end, but the 400 takes the cake 8)

I'm talking more the front element size in relation to length though...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I'm talking more the front element size in relation to length though...

True, true... in that case, the 50 f/1.0 / f/1.2, and 85 f/1.2 are also have some apparently disproportionate front elements.

Yep, and I love them all for those reasons.
For some reason though the 200 looks the most exaggerated, but that could also be because I've never seen one in person.

^ Exif says ISO 3200 for the porcupine. So looks great considering.

Originally Posted by moduleum

I don't know too much about fast lenses, but is it just me, or are the photos excessively noisy? What ISO were these taken at?

The first two have noise (ISO3200, and I didn't use NN), but I'm not sure where you see noise in the latter two (ISO400); BTW the data is all there in the EXIFs.