I'm sure people will give you different answers here, but I'd prefer the 70-200mm f/4 IS over the 200, simply based on the flexibility of a zoom and "IS". If speed (in both focusing & f-stop) and cost are a priority, the 200L II is a very, very fine lens. You mentioned that you stick mostly to the 200 end, so perhaps that may be a better option for you.
Sold the 70-200L F2.8 IS (too large, and very slightly soft)
Bought the 70-200L F4.0 IS
Decided I ALSO needed the faster and black 200 F2.8 for concerts, so bought it
Both are outstanding. If you don't need F2.8 ever, then get the zoom and you'll be happy.
Sold the 70-200L F2.8 IS (too large, and very slightly soft)
Bought the 70-200L F4.0 IS
Decided I ALSO needed the faster and black 200 F2.8 for concerts, so bought it
Both are outstanding. If you don't need F2.8 ever, then get the zoom and you'll be happy.
Steve
Aren't the 70-200 2.8 IS and 200 2.8 comparable in terms of sharpness?
Daan B:
Aren't the 70-200 2.8 IS and 200 2.8 comparable in terms of sharpness?
It depends on how you understand the concept of "comparable"
I did not have 70-200 f/2.8 L IS but I tested a couple of copies of this lens and they were soft at 200 mm and f/2.8.
200 f/2.8 prime is not bad but not better than 70-200 f/4.0 L IS (on the condition that the focusing distance is > 2.5 m)
I would have kept the prime if I had a strong need for f/2.8. I have had 3 copies of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS (tested 5 more) and I think that I know it quite well. There is no doubt that its IS is addicting. I believe that this zoom is superior to 200 mm prime. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the best zoom lens, Canon has made.
I have had both the 70-200 F4 IS and the 200 2.8. I was always using the 70-200 at 200 and needed the extra stop for shooting night softball for my daughter. I ended up selling both as she quit softball and buying the 300 F4 IS. You get the IS and L and a little more reach. All three lenses are fantastic and can't go wrong with any of them.
The prime while stunningly sharp and contrasty wide open is difficult indoors at best unless you have a tripod or monopod. I would go with the f4 IS if you don't shoot sports.
The 200 f2.8L would be perfect for that FL. Faster AF, sharper than any of the zooms (the drainpipe was a close 2nd).
It'll let in twice the light as the stellar f4L IS and it's nice and stealthy! The bokeh alone is worth any inconvenience.
I have had the 200 2.8 and the 70-200mm at the same time - right now I have the 70-200 2.8IS and 4IS vesions. The 200 was a nice lens but I couldn't live without the zoom in that range - especially when the zoom is such as great quality as the 2.8IS or 4IS.
I think I will have to make a decision soon on which 70-200 to keep - It will be a tough choice and I want both but for me, I can live without the 200L.
I have both. I cannot decide on selling one. They are that good. I bought the 200 prime after the zoom, as I needed the extra stop at 200 and the increased inconspicuousness it offered. Even though I now have the 85 1.2 II, 135 2, and 200 2.8 II in that range, I cannot decide to sell the zoom. The 70-200 4 IS is really good. For the moment, I will keep both.
I have not owned a copy of the 70-200 f/4 IS, so I cannot comment on it's sharpness compared to my 200 f/2.8 II. However, I own a 70-200 f/2.8 IS that is so sharp and contrasty that I can't imagine ever selling it.
So why would I own a 200 2.8 II when I already own an awesome copy of the 70-200 2.8 IS? For all of the reasons that Will has pointed out. It is simply great indoors, attracts less attention, easier to hold over the length of a basketball game or concert and focuses fast fast fast! For indoor work, the 200 2.8 II is a great lens to have.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Having had them all...in real world shooting, not so. AF speed/bokeh/sharpness the prime wins.
Believe what you like, parroting paper tests are just that.
I'm not just parroting tests. I own the f/4L IS, and I have formerly owned the 135L, which most agree is superior to the 200 f/2.8. My 135L was no sharper at 135 f/4 than my f/4L IS (roughly equal). My f/4L IS is absolutely tack sharp across the entire zoom range at any aperture. I have yet to find a prime in its range that can beat it for sharpness at the same aperture. Equal it? Sure. Beat it? I'm thinking you'd need the 200 f/2 or f/1.8. AF speed...well the 200 probably wins there, but in pure image quality, I'd have to see it to believe it.
Jordan, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Nobody buys the 135 f2L to shoot at f4. The f4L IS bokeh can be described
as jittery at best. (I've had 2 copies) The 200 f2.8L doesn't lag far behind the 135 in that department. I previously have
stated the f4L IS was stellar...for a zoom. I buy fast glass to shoot wide open and my comments come from that perspective.
Apples and oranges, really.
I actually am considering picking up a 200 f/2.8 for times I need 200mm @ f/2.8.
I was commenting on sharpness (I also found color and contrast to be comparable). Bokeh is likely a bit better on the prime, and obviously, you get a stop of aperture.
For use from time to time when you need 200mm, though, I think the zoom will be more useful overall. IQ wise, they are very very close, though.
