I have a couple of questions regarding IQ for the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) and the 200 2.8 lens. I have had the 70-200 f/4 lens for 5-6 years and shoot nature and landscape and 95% of the time off a tripod. It is my most used and favorite lens. Lately, I have found myself taking more candids of my kids and wishing I had a faster lens.
I was thinking of getting a 200 2.8 at first, but have recently thought about selling the f/4 and buying a 2.8 (non IS). Price would be about the same either way. I am concerned with the IQ of the prime compared to the 2.8 zoom and to the f/4 I currently have. Any noticable difference between the three? How much more in weight is the zoom 2.8 vs. the f4? I do hike with a backpack and tripod, so weight should be considered. Also, price of the 70-200 II is too steep at this time.
I have always heard the 200 2.8 is a sleeper lens, but was unsure of doubling up on the 200 mm focal length. Also, FWIW, I have a 300 f/4, if you were thinking of the 200 plus a 1.4x converter.
The 200 is an awesome lens right up there with the 135 but not quite. It will give you a better image quality than the 70-200 but having the zoom has it's advantages
I have a couple of questions regarding IQ for the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) and the 200 2.8 lens. I have had the 70-200 f/4 lens for 5-6 years and shoot nature and landscape and 95% of the time off a tripod. It is my most used and favorite lens. Lately, I have found myself taking more candids of my kids and wishing I had a faster lens.
I was thinking of getting a 200 2.8 at first, but have recently thought about selling the f/4 and buying a 2.8 (non IS). Price would be about the same either way. I am concerned with the IQ of the prime compared to the 2.8 zoom and to the f/4 I currently have. Any noticable difference between the three? How much more in weight is the zoom 2.8 vs. the f4? I do hike with a backpack and tripod, so weight should be considered. Also, price of the 70-200 II is too steep at this time.
I have always heard the 200 2.8 is a sleeper lens, but was unsure of doubling up on the 200 mm focal length. Also, FWIW, I have a 300 f/4, if you were thinking of the 200 plus a 1.4x converter.
so as I read it you have a 70-200/4 and a 300/4 and want to add either a 200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 ?
can i suggest selling both the 70-200 and 300/4 and adding in the cost of the non IS zoom and getting the 70-200/2.8 IS Mk2 ?
that lens can hold its own against any of the other lenses mentioned . add a 1.4 TC and you have a great 280/4 . add a 2x and you have a very good 400/5.6 both with a still very good IS
if you still need/want the smaller size and weight of the f4 zoom then consider keeping that. (But I would let it go)
I've been on the fence myself about getting the 200 f/2.8. It's a good lens, no doubt about it. The problem is that it's in a niche of sorts, which is well covered by other lens combinations:
1) 135L + 1.4x TC (189 f/2.8 - close enough, with similar IQ)
2) 70-200 f/2.8 MarkII (you get IS at 200mm, IQ comparable)
3) 300 f/4 IS (200 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC, with IS)
You can argue it's obsolete, but the same can be said for other lenses too.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Great thing about the 200 f2.8L....it's BLACK
With the current offering of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk II, I can't see myself getting a 200 f/2.8L. There may be application for some, but if I'm going fixed 200mm, it's going to be the 200 f/2L IS (but we'll save that discussion for another day). Even @ that, if you're looking @ adding ~200mm @ f/2.8, I'd get something with a bit of flexibility, so to answer your question, 70-200 f/2.8L, or 80-200 f/2.8L.
However, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk II is that good!
And, it'll give you a nice 280mm f/4 with the 1.4 TC and have IS also, with a very nice MFD!!!
Didn't realize you were the OP, Renee My point IS valid, black is SO less 'in your face'
and why many PJ's loved the drainpipe (besides the IQ) No one asked YOU to get one, did they
yeah but the OP has white lenses at the moment so I doubt the colour would scare him off
infact I dont really get the white v black lens debate (pipe owner here )
I was out last week and saw 2 guys shooting together. both had 70-200's , and both had pro spec bodies. 1 shot canon and was shooting a 1Ds3 +70-200/2.8IS mk1 and the other guy a D3s+70-200 VR (see the 2 sides can get on well together )
and i will say that both rigs were as 'in your face' as each other. actually both looked slightly out of place at a kids zoo where just about everything else was a P&S or rebel , small nikon , pen, nex type camera.
As a former Nikon shooter now Canon, the white lens makes a psychological difference at best... I loved my 70-200 2.8VR... I switched to Canon and bought the 2.8 is, the IQ. Great but I wouldn't use that lens. I couldn't stand it.. it was the size and color... call me crazy... it was just to "WHITE"!
trenchmonkey wrote:
Didn't realize you were the OP, Renee My point IS valid, black is SO less 'in your face' and why many PJ's loved the drainpipe (besides the IQ) No one asked YOU to get one, did they
Now surely, putting the little runner in there would give a creative spark somewhere?
My additional smiley face is put in there to show that I'm giving some light spirited banter too...
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I will have to check the B&S for prices on the 70-200 II, but I feel it is still out of reach even if I sell the f/4 zoom and 300 f/4. I am thinking $1150-1300 for the pair so that still leaves a lot of cash to make up. The good thing is I don't use the 300 as much as I thought I would. I may see about renting the 70-200 VII for a week or so to help make up my mind.
bignorm wrote:
As a former Nikon shooter now Canon, the white lens makes a psychological difference at best... I loved my 70-200 2.8VR... I switched to Canon and bought the 2.8 is, the IQ. Great but I wouldn't use that lens. I couldn't stand it.. it was the size and color... call me crazy... it was just to "WHITE"!
Selling my 200 f/2.8 is a mistake I still regret and hope to fix someday. I had picked up a 70-200 non-IS and figured I didn't need the 200 even though to my eye it was a bit sharper and faster to acquire focus. I now have the latest iteration of the 70-200 (the ver. II) which is a superb lens, but I'd get another 200 if I had the money. It's a lens that, like the 135mm f/2.0L, has something about its IQ which is just different and to my taste very attractive. Mr. Monkey notes that it is black (I assume suggesting it might be mistaken for a Nikon and therefore vastly superior lens ) and I actually found this useful. It was less intrusive, lighter, easier to drag around for a day and like all primes simpler and forced the user to think within its parameters. My favorite thing to do with it was to hunt swallows and hummers and its light weight and agility was a bonus. I'd camp out with it and my 300mm f/4.0 swapping off depending on range. You can't go wrong with the lens but it isn't as versatile as the zoom.
OntheRez wrote:
Selling my 200 f/2.8 is a mistake I still regret and hope to fix someday. I had picked up a 70-200 non-IS and figured I didn't need the 200 even though to my eye it was a bit sharper and faster to acquire focus. I now have the latest iteration of the 70-200 (the ver. II) which is a superb lens, but I'd get another 200 if I had the money. It's a lens that, like the 135mm f/2.0L, has something about its IQ which is just different and to my taste very attractive. Mr. Monkey notes that it is black (I assume suggesting it might be mistaken for a Nikon and therefore vastly superior lens ) and I actually found this useful. It was less intrusive, lighter, easier to drag around for a day and like all primes simpler and forced the user to think within its parameters. My favorite thing to do with it was to hunt swallows and hummers and its light weight and agility was a bonus. I'd camp out with it and my 300mm f/4.0 swapping off depending on range. You can't go wrong with the lens but it isn't as versatile as the zoom.
I have another suggestion.
For candids of the kids, just add a 85f1.8. Inexpensive, small, light and excellent IQ.
To me the difference in weight between my 70-200f4is and 70-200f2.8mk2 is substantial, especially on backpacking trips where every ounce counts.
surf monkey wrote:
I have another suggestion.
For candids of the kids, just add a 85f1.8. Inexpensive, small, light and excellent IQ.
To me the difference in weight between my 70-200f4is and 70-200f2.8mk2 is substantial, especially on backpacking trips where every ounce counts.
Hey SM,
I already have the 85 1.8, but I find I like the longer end of the 70-200, especially for candids, etc. Your suggestion on weight is helpful. I looked up the weight specs and there is quite a difference between the f/4 and the 2.8. If I went the VII route I could drop the 300mm and pack just the 70-200 and a 1.4X converter. Someone suggested the 135. I am going to read up on it also.
trenchmonkey wrote:
My point IS valid, black is SO less 'in your face'
