drive_75 wrote:
Those three would be awesome but if it was me, I would go 35L, 85Lii, and the 70-200Lii. I love the 135L and it's a great bargain but I would do the 35L to give me a wider choice.
Ditto that. I had 35L, 50L, 85L II, 135L and 70-200L II. As much as I love the 135L, I find that I don't really need f/2. If I'm in a low light situation, I'd just grab 85L II. If not, I'd just pick up 70-200L II.
Wahoowa wrote:
Ditto that. I had 35L, 50L, 85L II, 135L and 70-200L II. As much as I love the 135L, I find that I don't really need f/2. If I'm in a low light situation, I'd just grab 85L II. If not, I'd just pick up 70-200L II.
But....... the 135L is such a NICE lens for portraits! My most used lens for senior sessions.
I own the 200 F2 and had the 70-200 2.8 IS (older version).
The 200 F2.0 is easily the best lens I have used. Literally everything about it is top notch. The AF is blazing, the IS really does add 3-4 stops, and the IQ is stunning. Even the tripod collar is a step up from my 300 2.8 (which I thought was my best lens.). It is so good that I find ways to make it fit in my assignments. I have never had a lens where I would get creative to be able to use it.
That being said, 200mm fixed focal length is long even on a FF (I have 5D III and 1D IV) so if you shoot a particular venue or style most of the time, make darn sure you can make 200mm fit in because it would be a shame to have this lens sitting on the shelf.
FWIW, I shoot predominantly sports followed by events, and occasional weddings, etc.
If the 200 isn't so important to you or the mystique of the lens, you really should try the 135 F2.0...also an amazing lens that I use a lot...for a fraction of the cost (but no IS, etc)
David Frost wrote:
Is $6000 that worth it for the 200 f/2L or would you rather have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 2 other lenses?
Thnx
If one asks that question then one doesnt need the 200/2 or 1.8. Its a very specialized lens for people who really need the extra stop. If you can shoot at 2.8 then the zoom is a MUCH better choice. In fact. A lot of people who own the 200/2 or 1.8 also own the 70-200.
I have both lenses from title of thread. I would buy 70-200 first, evaluate images you are getting, and then decide if you need the prime 200. The weight of the prime prevents me from using it as often as I do the zoom, plus the zoom offers fl versatility. The 135 might be a second lens to consider, after purchasing the zoom, as it can offer a dramatic effect with its fl and shallow depth of field.
I read the thread title, and thought "is it even a competition, of course the 200/2 is better". Then I saw your question.
I use a 200/2 and 85/1.8 for weddings + portraits + sports. I've never missed a shot because I had to shoot at 70mm or 100mm or 135mm in 3 years of this setup professionally.
The 200/2 images stand out from the 70-200 images. Subtle for your average viewer, noticeable for photographers.
The lens is also a conversation piece and attracts comments. Can be good or bad, depending on what you are doing.
The 200 f/2 def is tack sharp by sample pics I've seen, just wondering cost wise I can just about get 85 f/1.2L II, 135 f/2L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the cost of just getting the 200 f/2L
The other thing I like about the 200F/2 is how well if takes the 1.4 and 2.0 MkIII extenders. Been shooting some early afternoon soccer games, and with the 2X I'm getting some great images @ 400mm.
Is the 70-200 with 2X as sharp as the 200F/2 with 2X?
For me the 200/2 is a magic lens. The images have a look about them that makes my heart melt. 70-200 is obviously more versatile, cheaper, and easier to shoot with, but I know that when I take the 200 out of the bag, something special is gonna happen.
I have both and love using the 200 f2. It just has a magic that my 70-200 II doesn't have but sometimes you need the wider end so. . . it all depends on the situation. If just needing the longer end of the zoom, I would use the 200 L f2.
