Thanks for your work Jonesy. Just the thread I've been looking for. We'll be grateful for all the comp samples you post! As a public service, it would help us all if you would shake the camera a bit when you take the 200L samples.
What kills the f/2 is simply the price. It is steep and not sure what Canon was thinking about when they set the price.
I bet they crapped their pants when they seen the results @f2
and said "I bet we can charge an obscene amount for this lens and they will still buy it."
LightShow wrote:
I bet they crapped their pants when they seen the results @f2
and said "I bet we can charge an obscene amount for this lens and they will still buy it."
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Is the Canon much better than the Nikon 200 f/2?
Pixie, if you are talking IQ, they are probably similar.
However, the Canon lens has some other performance advantages:
* a couple of stops better IS.
* significantly lighter
* easier handling also due to a smaller hood and better tripod mount layout.
* I am guessing that the AF drive is faster.
200/2 functions (for me) like a 135L, 70-200 and 85L rolled into one lens with IS.
Add up the cost of those lenses, and throw in an 85/1.8 to cover the shorter focal length missed by not having the zoom (ver I) and the difference in total cost is $780 to have the 200/2. Change that to the 70-200 II, you need spend only $180 more.
Oh and regarding Nikon 200/2 vs Canon 200/2.. had an opportunity (photographer's meet) to use a D700 w/200/2 and brought my 5DII and 200/2. Saw slight sharpness advantage to the Canon lens (but that might be due to better IS). Autofocus was just as snappy for both-- which probably means the Canon is better, since D700 is known to have better AF than 5DII. My test was limited and is by no means conclusive.
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Oh and regarding Nikon 200/2 vs Canon 200/2.. had an opportunity (photographer's meet) to use a D700 w/200/2 and brought my 5DII and 200/2. Saw slight sharpness advantage to the Canon lens (but that might be due to better IS). Autofocus was just as snappy for both-- which probably means the Canon is better, since D700 is known to have better AF than 5DII. My test was limited and is by no means conclusive.
Center AF on both cameras should be about the same speed/performance.
Preliminary tests on my newly purchased 200VR indicates that it's about even with the 200L I used to own. They are both FANTASTIC lenses!!!
That said, the 70-200 II looks like a winner, just like the Nikon version.
Jonesy wrote:
Here is a comparison I just did between the 200 @f2 and the 70-200 II @ 200mm at 2.8
What do you think?
I just recently made the same comparison with these 2 lenses on my 1Ds3. For most things, you can't tell them immediately apart and the zoom is more flexible. But if the background is closer, and thus more distracting, the advantage of the 2.0 is much more visible.
The f4 zoom - as much as I like its IQ - never did it for me because f4 simply isn't blurry enough.
SoundHound wrote:
Now I look for any excuse to shoot the F2.0. Right out of the camera I get the look I used to spend some time on in PS with other lenses.
Speaking of which, has anyone tried comparing the 200/2 to the 70-200 2.8 II and using a little blur on the background on the zoom? It's not gonna be quite the same, of course, but you may get more of that gorgeous blurred background look to some degree in PS.
SoundHound wrote:
Now I look for any excuse to shoot the F2.0. Right out of the camera I get the look I used to spend some time on in PS with other lenses.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Speaking of which, has anyone tried comparing the 200/2 to the 70-200 2.8 II and using a little blur on the background on the zoom? It's not gonna be quite the same, of course, but you may get more of that gorgeous blurred background look to some degree in PS.
To me that's the whole point of owning both - not having to do that in PS
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Oh and regarding Nikon 200/2 vs Canon 200/2.. had an opportunity (photographer's meet) to use a D700 w/200/2 and brought my 5DII and 200/2. Saw slight sharpness advantage to the Canon lens (but that might be due to better IS). Autofocus was just as snappy for both-- which probably means the Canon is better, since D700 is known to have better AF than 5DII. My test was limited and is by no means conclusive.
Also you were also comparing the two lenses on cameras with different resolution.
My casual impression is that the new zoom is just about as sharp and contrasty as any of the primes at 2.8. It simply can't do f/2. There will always be a role for faster lenses provided they are good wide open.
I purchased the 24-70L and 70-200L 2.8 IS and used them for two weddings.
Went back to the 35L on the 1DIII and 85L on the 1DsIII.
Purchased the 200L IS and mounted to to the 1DsIII and the 85L has not seen the light of day in the last year.
If you are a prime shooter the 200L IS is the ultimate lens.
I kept the 70-200L IS as a backup and for my son to borrow.
