Does infinite time = time with no end = never? Say an object is to travel from point A to point B, a finite distance of 2 meters. Say the object travels at 1m/s.

After 1 meter the speed of the object is halved. After another half of the previous distance the speed is halved again, and so on.

So for each term in the infinite series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ..., the term represents the distance the object travels in meters before the speed is halved.

Now apparently the object does eventually reach point B, but it takes an infinite amount of time to do so.

Yet infinity has no end.

So if the the object does ever reach point B, wouldn't that mark the end of the infinite length of time that it took to reach it and wouldn't that contradict with the definition of infinity?

Yet if we say it never reaches point B, which is to say that there is no point in time that it reaches point B because that point in time would mark an end to infinity, then isn't it consistent with what we mean by infinity?
The key to cracking Zeno's paradox is the realization that an infinite series can have a finite sum. You mention an example of such a series:

$$\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n} = 1 +\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} + \dots = 2$$

That yields the 2 meters from your example. You can divide that number infinitely, as Zeno did, but if you add those divisions back up, you still get 2: a finite number. Because it's a finite distance, it can be crossed in finite time.

You still have to cross each partial distance, but each of these distances is also finite (in fact, you can subdivide each of the the same way you divided up the original distance), so they can all be crossed in finite time too. If you move at the same speed through each one, they form the very same sort of infinite series as the distances do. In fact, you don't even have to move at the same speed through each one; it just makes the math easier if you do.
Proof by assumption:
1. Assume there is an object C which is twice as far away as object B in the same direction. 
2. Since the velocity is constant, and object B is in the path between object A and object C, then by the same process you can see after the first term in the new sequence (for A and C) that object A does in fact reach object B.