Which is sharpest wide open? This would be a portrait lens only. I believe the F1.8 isn’t supported anymore, anything else I should know? Have modern lenses caught up to either of these? Thanks
As a 200/1.8 owner, and I’ve had it for at least ten years, it’s a super sharp lens. Quite incredible. I have not used the 200 f/2. I am a bit worried that I’ll get it out one day and it won’t focus. I use it only a few times a year, but when I do I expect fantastic results.
I don’t think you can go wrong with either, but the ability to have a lens serviced should not be underestimated.
This review found that the f/1.8 version was actually a bit sharper in the corners when focused at infinity, but that the f/2.0 version is optically superior otherwise due to better control of aberrations and better bokeh: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-canon-ef-200mm-2-0-l-is
But the bigger differences to consider may be less about optical quality. The f/2.0 lens has image stabilization (IS) and focuses faster which could be significant for a lot of uses. And as others have mentioned the f/1.8 version may be difficult to repair since it has been discontinued and parts are not generally available for it.
In terms of comparison to modern lenses, there aren't really any equivalent 200mm f/2 lenses designed for full frame mirrorless systems yet. Sony doesn't have one for full-frame E-mount and there's no Sigma ART or Panasonic/Leica L-mount version. Fuji does have a 200mm f/2 XF lens (for $6000) that is pretty stellar optically but it is an APS-C lens rather than full frame.
You can look at an image quality comparison between the EF 200mm f/2 and the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 on the EOS R here: https://bit.ly/2Gz1GiW
It looks like the 200mm f/2 might be very slightly sharper in the center although the RF lens actually looks better in the corners. So if you're shooting mirrorless and are ok with f/2.8, then the RF lens could be an attractive option.
But I would guess that most people interested in a 200mm f/2 lens want or need to shoot at f/2 a good chunk of the time. In which case a slower lens may not really be an alternative, and corner sharpness may not matter all that much since the corners will likely be blurred out for most subjects shot at f/2.
Quick note that 200mm 1.8 won’t shoot at full speed mechanical on the R5/6. Other than that, my copy holds its own in terms of sharpness (if you nail focus in such narrow DOF!) with the rest of my glass. Honestly, if you only want sharp, get the Sigma 105mm (I have and love this lens too!). For half the weight, size, and price, it’s as sharp or sharper than either 200mm at f/2.
The 200mm f/1.8 has a little more CA and a little slower focus than modern lenses (I haven’t used the f/2 to compare), but the rendering is still up there with the best, or better. Bokeh is my favorite of any lens I’ve used. f/1.8-f/2.5 all really shine.
Well, never owned any of the two unfortunately, but when I did a bit or research, I found at least three good reasons to avoid the vI, even if it's of course quite a bit cheaper than vII:
- no IS, with such a hefty lens it can definitely come handy, especially for handheld shooting
- no service anymore: particularly critical as this lens focuses "by wire", so if the AF fails, you don't have MF either, i.e. a very expensive white paperweight in your hands
- quite terrible bokeh balls save for F1.8 (at least for my tastes): I understand that this lens is meant to be shot wide open, but already at a meager F2, the vI begins to show see-sawed bokeh balls, which are at their worst at F2.8. By F4 they are clearly octagonal, which is not nice either. The vII has none of this issues
So if I'd really wanted this lens, I'd definitely go the extra mile and get the vII.
gnet158 wrote:
Which is sharpest wide open? This would be a portrait lens only. I believe the F1.8 isn’t supported anymore, anything else I should know? Have modern lenses caught up to either of these? Thanks
I've tested a few copies of both on the optical bench and found they're pretty indistinguishable as to sharpness. As to newer lenses passing them by, well, nobody seems to be making a newer version of the f/2.0, which is actually rather old design-wise.
If you get and f1.8 at a good price, that's one thing, but I would be hesitant to make it a major investment. It's not only not supported for repairs but the parts don't exist anymore, so once it fails, as all lenses do, it's a table leg. You can expect f/2.0 parts and repair capabilities for at least another 5-7 years.
RCicala wrote:
I've tested a few copies of both on the optical bench and found they're pretty indistinguishable as to sharpness. As to newer lenses passing them by, well, nobody seems to be making a newer version of the f/2.0, which is actually rather old design-wise.
If you get and f1.8 at a good price, that's one thing, but I would be hesitant to make it a major investment. It's not only not supported for repairs but the parts don't exist anymore, so once it fails, as all lenses do, it's a table leg. You can expect f/2.0 parts and repair capabilities for at least another 5-7 years.
Wow. Thank you for sharing this comparison. You actually have data to substantiate your sharpness claims. I had assumed the newer design would be sharper. I got my 1.8 for a very good price, and my copy is plenty sharp—if I can get the focus plane where I want it!
