Ive owned both lenes, well the 70-200 L 2.8 IS version anyways.
200 f/2 is a lens in its very own league. The IS is oustanding,the lens is razor sharp right through, including at f/2.
Its not an overly large lens as well, which helps with the usability factor. Below examples handheld at 1/13th.( Yes im an alcoholic!)
There is no doubt this is a stupidly expensive lens, but Ihave found I use it ALL the time. Not so much to justify it's purchase, but because the images make me really enjoy photogaphy. Its that simple.
I would have chosen to own the EF 200/2L IS over the EF 300/2.8L IS, if I owned a longer lens such as the EF 400/2.8L IS. But at this time, I have to pick only one, so it's going to be the 300 for me for a while. Should I ever start pulling in huge wads of cash (not holding my breath here), then I'll probably go for the 200 and 400.
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.
Someone from the other forum compared them at wide open and the bokeh difference was minimal, it wasn't as big of a difference as when you compare the 85 1.8 to 85L. The MFD from the 70-200 2.8 II made it possible to diffuse the background more than the version 1, the owner was asking if he should sell his 200 f/2 afterward since he now use his 70-200 II more due to better versatility....I'll see if I can find the thread to link it.
yauyi wrote:
Someone from the other forum compared them at wide open and the bokeh difference was minimal, it wasn't as big of a difference as when you compare the 85 1.8 to 85L. The MFD from the 70-200 2.8 II made it possible to diffuse the background more than the version 1, the owner was asking if he should sell his 200 f/2 afterward since he now use his 70-200 II more due to better versatility ....I'll see if I can find the thread to link it.
PM the owner of that 200 f/2 and ask him how he like his 200 f/2 vs the 70-200 II
The 200 f/2 provide only slightly more diffused background, certainly wasn't as big of an improvement as from a 85 1.8 to 85L. No way I would ever drop $5K for such a small gain..
Boy I tell ya, those last shots at first were hard to tell apart, but when looking at them more here, I can see an advantage to the 200/2. I mean, the background has that edge on the blur, more creative overall. Is it worth an extra 2 grand? Only if you're getting paid IMHO. Then the investment makes sense. I would suspect for an advanced amateur, the 70-200 @ 200 will be more than enough to satisfy for 2 grand less.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take the 200/2 in a HEARTBEAT!!! haha
EDIT: I realized there were 3 pages to this, my post referenced the first page. Whoops! And obviously you are a professional, so actually, a lot of what I mentioned doesn't even apply The 200/2 is an absolutely AMAZING hunk of glass.
Very quick test just as I'm bored and should be working from home
I shot handheld 5D2 with 200/f:2 and 70-200/f:2,8IS2 both wide-open and hand holded. Only realising shutterspeed (1/80 and 1/40) was a wee bit low, but then it shows how good the IS is!
It seems the focus plane is not exactly identical (look at the snail ) but gives an idea on how busy backgrounds look, but I tried to get focus on the front rim of the plastic container.
and for serious PP this is the link for full rez pics... these files are BIG!!!
www.webdog.se/tmp/200f2.jpg;
www.webdog.se/tmp/70200f28.jpg;
As I got the Mk2 six months after my 200/2, I suspect I would not have bought the 200 IF I knew how good the Mk2 would be... but still that f:2 is really insane and now that I have them both I just keep smiling
When you walk the sidelines with a big white telephoto you are a pro; when you walk with the 70-200L you are a parent.
When you go to rehersal with a big white telophoto and demenstrate the 1DsIII's silent shutter and ask if you can shoot from the alter the answer is always "Yes".
The 200L IS is a pro lens and those that shoot it are treated differently.
Psychic1 wrote:
When you walk the sidelines with a big white telephoto you are a pro; when you walk with the 70-200L you are a parent.
When you go to rehersal with a big white telophoto and demenstrate the 1DsIII's silent shutter and ask if you can shoot from the alter the answer is always "Yes".
The 200L IS is a pro lens and those that shoot it are treated differently.
Like it or not $$$ talks and ...
Do you buy lenses to look like a professional, or do you buy lenses to be a professional?
I couldn't possibly care less what other people might say or think about the equipment I am using. All I care about is using the best (as in most appropriate) tools to achieve my goals. I actually find it annoying that random strangers come up to me and ask me about my lens--it has not always been a good experience.
The top five things people say, and the things that I think to myself when they do:
1. How much did that lens cost? [If I tell you, are you going to rob me?]
2. I bet you can see the moon with it. [Um....I can see the moon without it, too.]
3. Are you a professional? [If you want to pay me for my photos, then yes.]
4. How much zoom does it have? [None. It's a fixed focal length lens.]
5. How heavy is it? [No, I will not let you hold it.]
You make it sound like simply owning an expensive lens makes you worthy of respect. It doesn't. Any Uncle Bob with deep pockets can buy an 800/5.6L IS or a 200/2L IS. That doesn't make them a pro.
And conversely, a pro who shoots with an EF 50/1.4 is not some wannabe. A real professional doesn't care about status and isn't a snob about gear, because they know the real reason why they are successful is because of their vision, regardless of what they use to achieve it.
I begin the season by giving the athletic director a copy of my insurance policy and I am granted access to the field where no parents, students or fans are permitted.
The cost of my gear caused me to investigate insurance and the liability portion of the policy is the reason I have access.
Without the 1DsIII, 1DIII, 200L IS, ... I would have no insurance and no access.
Psychic1, Having insurance doesn't make you a Pro, nor does having large white lenses. I have insurance on my car, that doesn't make me Mario Andretti. It's not a requirement to have top of the line gear to get it insured and carry liability.
BTW how old is that baseball shot, you've posted it so many time, back when that was taken canon was the camera most pros where using, in todays time the tables are turning, I'm planning to switch to nikon. But in the end it's not about nikon or canon, it about vision.
It's in regard to Psychic's shot of all the the white lens, this thread is all off topic. Only reason I have is there system today IMHO is better, and I 'm only concerned about what I need today.
