Ariel Bravy
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #1 · Comparing the 200 1.8 and 200 2.0 IS | |
This weekend I shoot a cheer event here in Atlanta for our friend Hammy. He was in Houston this weekend, but two of his 200 1.8's were here in Atlanta. I shot the event with a loaner 200 f2 IS that came in a few days ago from CPS. Gotta love free toys! 
The second day they had awards throughout the day and once we got to the last set of awards, before we tore down the computers, I pulled out both his 200 1.8's and compared it to my 200 f2 and I noticed a bunch of improvements in the newer model that I'd like to reflect back to you guys.
First a pair of pics so that it makes it easier to visualize what I'm saying.
200 1.8, courtesy of the-digital-picture.com
 |
|
|
|
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4444/20018vq4.jpg |
|
|
|
|
200 f2, courtesy of Canon:
|
|
|
|
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7758/200f2fz0.jpg |
|
|
|
|
The 200 1.8 is front-heavy. The f2 balances better in my hand.
With the 1.8, because it's more front-heavy, you have to hold it closer towards the front element. The problem with this is two-fold:
1) Your hand is right on both the focus ring and the ribbed metal focus preset ring. I didn't shoot with the 1.8 much and I don't know how much of an issue this'd be in actual shooting, but it was annoying to have that feeling in my hand.
Because your hand is farther back on the f2, there's less of your hand crowding the focus ring, lessening the possibility of accidentally knocking focus off. And at such wide apertures, DOF is crazy thin, even if you're more than just a few meters away.
2) The focus switches stick out from the side of the 1.8 which is annoying in your palm. Also, the AF/MF switch is right where your palm would be if you were supporting the lens in your left hand while shooting vertically which I typically do.
Look at the f2. The switches are all flat. If you're shooting vertically, you can turn the ring upside down and because the weight is shifted farther back, your hand slides back farther, giving you more empty real estate to place your hand. Also, the AF/MF switch has been moved to no-man's land so there's basically no possible way you could accidentally knock your lens into MF. This is a problem I've had repeatedly with the 70-200 2.8 IS and so I've gaffered over the switch on that lens to lock it in AF.
The ribbed preset focus ring is on the far side of the focus ring on the f2 as well, a big help, IMHO.
I shot the majority of the event off a monopod and found the AF-stop buttons very useful. I typically shot with the right-most AF point selected (top if you're shooting vertically), occasionally shifting down a point. There were times I'd want to use all 45 points, such as if a girl was tumbling through the air of if she was sitting on the ground sticking her leg up or something and I'd want to focus on her body which is lower in the frame. When this situation would arise, I'd simply hit the AF-stop button on the lens to temporarily enable all 45 AF points (via custom function) when needed. That was a big help. (That third thumb button to the left of the * button was set to center point AF, but I never use that button...)
If you put the 1.8 and the 2 face-to-face, the 1.8 is ever so slightly larger, but not to a noticeable degree.
I like the lens foot much better on the 2.0. It's longer and farther away from the body so it makes for a great handle. One of the 1.8's had the native lens foot which was pretty stubby. The other had the RRS replacement foot w/ QR dovetails. It's longer than the Canon foot, but still closer to the body and so it's a tight fit for your fingers. I like the added height both for the handle and because it raises the lens up just high enough to where when I shoot with the monopod and that bogen swivel head, I wouldn't have to stoop.
The lens collar has notches every 90 degrees on the 2.0 which is a BIG help. Neither the 1.8 nor the 70-200 2.8 IS do this. It makes it so easy to get the lens collar into position and not have to fine tune it so that it's in alignment with the tripod/monopod.
The drop-in filter is a bit different. On the 1.8, you press a button down and lift the filter. The 2.0 is a pinch and lift design. Not sure which design I prefer, but leaning towards the 2.0.
The IS is amazing. If you need the 1.8, you need the 1.8, but when it comes to low-light still photography, that 5-stop IS is unbelievable and blows away the third-stop difference in maximum aperture.
The lens is handholdable, but will tire out your hand after a little while. Look at the metal label on top of the lens that has the lens designation written on it. On the 1.8, it's on the main barrel of the lens. On the 2, it's on the lens collar. When you're shooting vertically, your thumb may rest on that metal thing. As your hand starts to get slippery and needs to clamp down on the lens to keep it tight, that metal thing starts to slip against the thumb. The traction isn't as good as the white textured surface of the body. On the f2, you can easily rotate that metal plate out of the way.
As far as sample shots, I don't really have any to share. This impression was mainly from a usability point of view as you can see. From what I've seen this weekend, the f2 is DEAD SEXY and I look forward to using it for some portraits this week. The look you get is more magical than the 2.8 lenses wide open. With 2.8 you get a nice blurry background. At f2, what background? 
Edited on Nov 16, 2008 at 11:47 PM · View previous versions
|
However, I am using it sparingly these days because it would be a major problem to get it repaired.
(Image 1)