By all accounts I see differing opinions on this very topic on if the 200mm F2.0 is worth it. I shoot sports such as hockey and equestrian events and then I do weddings and portraits. I currently do not own either of these two lenses and I'd like to pick one up.
I have tried out the 70-200 F2.8 IS II and was impressed.
I'm currently using a 5D Mark II and a 7D using a 135mm F2 L and the 300mm F2.8 L.
I find I don't use the 300mm at weddings at all and was thinking either the 70-200 or the 200 F2L would simply be better suited for what I do overall.
I like the idea of having a F2 lens at 200mm that can convert to a 280mm F2.8 lens. The idea really has me thinking.
My big questions between the two are.
A) what the difference in focus accuracy and speed of the two.
B) is the sharpness of the two lenses at F2.8 significantly better or worse.
I'm expecting the bokeh on the 200mm F2 to be significantly better so I won't even touch on that.
a) I do not notice a difference. They're both very accurate and speedy
b) if you own a 200/2 you do not bother stopping down unless you are doing group shots.
c) 200/2 melts away the background while the zoom somewhat does it.
buy the 200/2 if you need f/2.0 and the bokeh. if you do not need it stick to the 70-200/2.8 IS II
My thing is I'm certain I won't use the zoom as a zoom when it comes to weddings.
I'm addicted to my 85mm 1.8 for that focal length. I could see myself using the 70-200 in the 135-200 range.
A few questions arise of course. If I buy the 70-200 do I sell the 135mm. I know if I buy the 200mm I won't even be guessing at that as the answer will be a no.
I know when I was shooting Nikon the AF and overall performance of the 200mm F2 was way better than the 70-200 F2.8 VRII.
I'm just assuming in Canon's case it's the same thing.
In the days before the 70-200/II, the 200L got definitely a lot more action than since the mk2 zoom moved in, that's for sure. I'd say that the zoom will get you 90% there at a fraction of the cost and weight. However, for the special occasions I still bust out the prime.
I never shot the 200/2 at anything other than f2, so I can't speak to its sharpness stopped down.
From what I've been seeing the Canon 200mm F2.0 is reviewed by several websites as being the best lens that Canon offers. That alone gets me thinking as it would serve well as a 200mm F2.0 portrait lens and short telephoto lens and one darn good 280mm F2.8 lens.
I'm trying to get a loaner from CPS to try out before making the big decision.
I wouldn't want to be stuck at 200mm when I shoot weddings or even portraits. For weddings, the 24-70/105 range is much more useful to me. The 70-200mm 2.8 is a great versatile portrait lens.
I do own the 24-70 for weddings. I actually use the 24-70 and 85mm 1.8 a lot. The 85mm 1.8 has to be one of the best values out there.
I typically use the 135 as the longer lens for ceremonies and will use it whenever possible for portraits. I have owned the 200mm F2 with Nikon and I used that beast whenever I could to take portraits. I know the distance required to use it is the limiting factor for portraits but it's a beast.
My gut feeling is all I gain with the 70-200 is versatility. Such a dilemma as I'd like that 200mm F2 but the price tag even on a used one, is tough to swallow.
On a technical level, I believe that few people can justify 200 f/2 IS over 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII.
The prime has one stop advantage and several disadvantages when compared to the zoom.
The prime's price was hard to swallow even for a collector like myself.
Therefore, my recommendation is that you get the zoom unless you must have f/2 at 200mm fixed.
magicpixels wrote:
I do own the 24-70 for weddings. I actually use the 24-70 and 85mm 1.8 a lot. The 85mm 1.8 has to be one of the best values out there.
I typically use the 135 as the longer lens for ceremonies and will use it whenever possible for portraits. I have owned the 200mm F2 with Nikon and I used that beast whenever I could to take portraits. I know the distance required to use it is the limiting factor for portraits but it's a beast.
My gut feeling is all I gain with the 70-200 is versatility. Such a dilemma as I'd like that 200mm F2 but the price tag even on a used one, is tough to swallow....Show more →
Canon's 200/2 is 0.8 pounds lighter than nikon's. As Peter said if you need f/2 there is only one way to this.
I've not used the ver 2 zoom, but shoot weddings all the time w/200/2 alongside 85/1.8. I justify the cost as only $600-ish more than the 70-200, 85L and 135L which I would have otherwise owned
For sports, the 200/2 is great but specialized. Its a bit tight for most indoor sports. Use the 85/1.8 a little more. Of course its great for field sports.
dolina wrote:
buy the 200/2 if you need f/2.0 and the bokeh. if you do not need it stick to the 70-200/2.8 IS II
I'd second that. I used both for ice hockey last season, but ended up using the 70-200 only by the middle of the season. I was using the 1d4 at iso 3200 and was able to stop down the lens and still stop action.
Dave C wrote:
I'd second that. I used both for ice hockey last season, but ended up using the 70-200 only by the middle of the season. I was using the 1d4 at iso 3200 and was able to stop down the lens and still stop action.
As much as I love to gush over the 200/2 it is 5.6 pounds and Cartier watch* to some people. But note that the image quality of the 200/2 and it's 5-stops of IS will distinguish your work from similarly skilled photogs.
* "It's a price of a car" is such a cliche already that it has lost all its shock value.
Everything seems to be pointing to the 70-200. But then you start shooting with the 200 F/2 and forget all about the obvious thing to do . That 200 is an amazing piece of glass!
You know I almost wish I could have both but I think about that hard and it just seems so unpractical.
I keep trying to talk myself out of a 200 F2 but I know just how damn good the lens is. I think everybody tries to say its just 1 stop faster but the truth of it is, it's one stop faster and it's sharper at F2 then the 70-200 is at F2.8.
The 200 is uniformly sharp, at all apertures, and across the frame. The 70-200 is close.
At the end of the day it becomes the classic zoom vs speed argument. I have a 200 but I want a 70-200 too
Ironically, I think the 200's bokeh is not that great tbh. It's better than most lenses, but if you chuck in a crappy background, the bokeh looks rubbish just like any other lens.
I can't imagine using a 200 F2 or 300 F2.8 at a wedding. It would make guests etc very uncomfortable i think. The 70-200 is definitely the upper limit i would want to use/carry. The 70-200 is way more flexible. If you really need F2 and 200 then sure but honestly the 70-200 2.8 is much more flexible and considerably cheaper. Agree on the 85 1.8, its a gem of little lens. The 135F2 is a stunning lens and there isn't that much of a difference between 135 and 200 so you already have an F2 lens if you really need the speed.
magicpixels wrote:
You know I almost wish I could have both but I think about that hard and it just seems so unpractical.
I don't know why you would say a thing like that. After you pay for the 200 f/2.0, the cost of adding the zoom will seem trivial, and adding all that versatility for so little money will seem highly practical.
magicpixels wrote:
I typically use the 135 as the longer lens for ceremonies and will use it whenever possible for portraits. I have owned the 200mm F2 with Nikon and I used that beast whenever I could to take portraits. I know the distance required to use it is the limiting factor for portraits but it's a beast.
Depending on the shooting distance, you can create quite a similair look between the 135L and 200/2.
My gut feeling is all I gain with the 70-200 is versatility. Such a dilemma as I'd like that 200mm F2 but the price tag even on a used one, is tough to swallow.
Yes, flexibility vs speed (if only 1 stop). For the price, the 70-200II almost seem like a bargain (when compared to the 200/2). The 200/2 is limited to portrait shooting (when you have the space - usually outside). The 70-200II is suited to many more tasks.
. That 200 is an amazing piece of glass!