A lot has been said about these 2. But which one is your favorite in terms of IQ? The faster older glass or the newer, more contrasty and better color controlled?

--trajan

Here we go again

Is it just me but these threads always concerns Peter one way or another.

Before going forward read http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829842/0?keyword=1.8#7709277

trajan wrote:
A lot has been said about these 2. But which one is your favorite in terms of IQ? The faster older glass or the newer, more contrasty and better color controlled?

Looks like you already decided which is your favorite in terms of IQ.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

The post was deleted as N/A.

dont think the OP had the 2.8 in mind. 200/1.8 v 200/2 IS?

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
dont think the OP had the 2.8 in mind. 200/1.8 v 200/2 IS?

You are right, I must be coming down with a major case of dyslexia.
However, I'll let the experts such as Brainiac talk about that well trodden subject of 200 f/1.8 vs. f/2.

If you are not an expert on this matter (and many others), than I cannot imagine what would be necessary to be considered one...

Well, thank you Luis. At the same time, I must thank you again for sharing your lens fungus experience, with excellent images to boot. You and Breitling must have spurred some of us into a higher degree of lens storage environmental vigillance which can not hurt.

I heard the 200/2 is 3 stops slower then the 200/1.8.

Having considered both lenses, I finally got the Leica 180/2 APO instead.

luketrot wrote:
I heard the 200/2 is 3 stops slower then the 200/1.8.

You must have misunderstood that, or your mind is perchance in a worse state of confusion than mine. It is 1DMk IV which is 3 stops faster than EF 200mm f/2 IS.

PetKal wrote:
luketrot wrote:
I heard the 200/2 is 3 stops slower then the 200/1.8.

You must have misunderstood that, or your mind is perchance in a worse state of confusion than mine. It is 1DMk IV which is 3 stops faster than EF 200mm f/2 IS.


I think he is humorously referring to the 1/3-2/3 stops difference talks you and Richard used to have.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
PetKal wrote:
luketrot wrote:
I heard the 200/2 is 3 stops slower then the 200/1.8.

You must have misunderstood that, or your mind is perchance in a worse state of confusion than mine. It is 1DMk IV which is 3 stops faster than EF 200mm f/2 IS.


I think he is humorously referring to the 1/3-2/3 stops difference talks you and Richard used to have.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Yakim, at my age one never takes anything for granted any more.

(To illustrate: The other day I was shooting ducks in flight using an otherwise well performing 1DMkIIN + 200 f/1.8 combo. The camera would pick up focus initially but it had an inordinary amount of trouble tracking the bird from there on. Utterly disgusted I was about to toss the whole combo into the lake when I noticed that the camera AF mode was set to "One shot". )

When I was in school we had a saying "There is only one car faster then a Ford Mustang GT, a Ford Escort GT." Because every Ford Escort GT owner had a story how they beat a Mustang GT.

When I here Brainiac spout on about his 2/3+ stop gain over the 200/2, all I can think of is a proud Escort GT owner..

PetKal wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
PetKal wrote:
luketrot wrote:
I heard the 200/2 is 3 stops slower then the 200/1.8.

You must have misunderstood that, or your mind is perchance in a worse state of confusion than mine. It is 1DMk IV which is 3 stops faster than EF 200mm f/2 IS.


I think he is humorously referring to the 1/3-2/3 stops difference talks you and Richard used to have.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Yakim, at my age one never takes anything for granted any more.

(To illustrate: The other day I was shooting ducks in flight using an otherwise well performing 1DMkIIN + 200 f/1.8 combo. The camera would pick up focus initially but it had an inordinary amount of trouble tracking the bird from there on. Utterly disgusted I was about to toss the whole combo into the lake when I noticed that the camera AF mode was set to "One shot". )

Well, I am not a youngster myself as well and that is exactly why I wrote "I think...".

Alas, I do recall the times I shot moving subjects at low SS thinking: "It's O.K., I have IS".

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

In my hands, the 200/2 IS has better image quality . . but only because the IS allows me to hold it more steady.

Other than that, I'd rate the two lenses as virtually indistinguishable, IQ-wise.

DavidP wrote:
In my hands, the 200/2 IS has better image quality . . but only because the IS allows me to hold it more steady.

And apart from IS, doesn't the lighter weight add as well to the 200/2 IS better handheld ability?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

luketrot wrote:
When I here Brainiac spout on about his 2/3+ stop gain over the 200/2, all I can think of is a proud Escort GT owner..


I recall brainiac stated he would stop asserting the 2/3 stop advantage, after being presented with carefully controlled tests.

That is something I respect about Richard, that he is willing to change his position when presented with good evidence and/or argument.

Purchased a 200 F/2 3 weeks ago............IMHO............the fastest and sharpest lens Canon has made to date. I have no problem handholding this, and I'm not youngster either.........the tracking ability of this, when used with the new 7D is the best Ive experienced........and all Ive ever used is Canon....I'm sure the conversation will go on forever.....but Ive made my choice, after many outing with the 1.8, it just cant keep up with its new younger brother.............