Originally Posted by stuartr
The 70-200 and 80-200 are big and heavy, but nice image makers. That said, I never really found the longer focal lengths all that interesting. They can be very useful, but I would say that 90% of my photography is 105mm or shorter. Rather than a 70-200, I went with a 105/2. Don't get me wrong, the long zooms can be very useful for events, sports and so on, but they are not worth the bulk for me. I would rather one good prime.
To each his own I guess. I started taking an unofficial "low key" photo class around a month ago, and I've found that for portraits, nothing beats the 80-200 range for isolating a subject or adding drama to an otherwise uninteresting scene. For whatever reason, my composition at longer focal lengths is much better than at wide angle; perhaps that shows my weakness as a photographer, but in general I just think it's a personal preference.