It's criminal the the 200 2.8L is not availble with IS. That's a deal breaker for non-sports low light work I do. For outdoor, travel, nature, studio portrature, etc. the 70-200 f/4 (any version) is fantastic.
trenchmonkey:
Having had them all...in real world shooting, not so.
I got 200 f/2.8 L prime mostly for its better performance at MFD. I think that in real world shooting it was never really sharper than 70-200 f/4.0 L IS (both wide open and focusing distance at least 9 feet). I analyzed every single shot taken with it and I never saw it sharper than 70-200 f/4.0 L IS. I think that colour and contrast of the zoom are slightly better too. I can get shots with IS zoom that I would never be able to take with 200 mm prime. I believe that one needs IS (or tripod) for 200 mm. I am still probably going to get 200 f/2.8 L again for its better MFD sharpness, bokeh, slightly faster focusing and f/2.8
Daan B wrote:
Aren't the 70-200 2.8 IS and 200 2.8 comparable in terms of sharpness?
Perhaps stopped down, but certainly not wide open.
The prime 2.8 is very sharp wide open, but the (my) 70-200 needs to be stopped down until it gets close. But stopped down it will be difficult to see a difference with normal prints. I think the prime has a little more pop and corner to corner sharpness.
I'm not a pixel peeper, but wide open I thought the difference to be significance enough to warrant purchasing the prime.
Grant808 wrote:
Not that this will help...but I have the 200/2.8 II and the 70-200/2.8IS, and would only consider 'downgrading' the f/2.8IS to f/4IS.
With the sale of the f/2.8IS you should be able to get them both, no? f/2.8 when you need it, and IS when you need it...
Considered the same, but then I realized that I like having a very versatile 70-200/2.8 zoom with IS. If push comes to shove I find myself using f/2.8-f/3.5 more often than f/4 and beyond. To each his own and I'd understand making a different choice, especially as a travel lens.
The 200 along with a 85 1.8 are lenses I ma considering now. I just sold a great 70-200 non IS don't know why it's a sickness I have. I was thinking of buying hte 70-200 4 IS but the reason I even owned the 70-200 is for shooting LL sports. Then after I sold my 2.8 non IS I realized the 2.8 is better for sports and now I am about to spring for another 70-200 2.8 non IS and yes I prefer the non IS to the 2.8 IS. But now I have trhown a monkey wrench into the works and have been thinking the 200 2.8 for my sport lens throwing in the 85 1.8 for when I am next to the batters box. I also have the 100-400 which imo does a great job shooting this types of shooting but living in the NW I do need a speedy lens. So that is now my headache which way to go? prime is the zoom?
mfurman wrote:
200 f/2.8 prime is not bad but not better than 70-200 f/4.0 L IS (on the condition that the focusing distance is > 2.5 m)
The 200f2.8L II is usable even at 30 cm focusing distance (or so), with a full set of extension tubes. Here's my 5 cents on the subject: http://www.pbase.com/lumodomo/image/41339986/original
Note that the surface of the table is not sharp as it is not within the very shallow DoF!
In general, whatever I have done with the 200f2.8, it has always surprised me with its quality. Close range or long range, even in astrophotography and with teleconverters, it always delivers. Compare how stacked teleconverters work with the 70-200f2.8L IS and the 200f2.8L at http://www.pbase.com/lumodomo/moon (the two rightmost images).
These discussions about lens sharpness are pretty pointless unless you say which body your judgment is primarily based upon. A 5D and a 450D can make the same lens seem very different, due to the different pixel densities, and image circles. I suspect that a lot of the lens disagreements which take place here are due to the fact that the protagonists use different sensors. On one camera a lens might be optimally sharp at f2.8, on another it wouldn't. And everyone has a different view on how much corners matter.
tanglefoot, for the last couple years I have brought the 200mm f/2.8 prime and that 85mm f/1.8 to shoot at basketball games and they are a great combination. I shoot from the stands mostly. If I am in the first few rows it is the 85 and back I used the 200. The 200 gives you a lot more keepers, it is an amazing lens. I also use it for afternoon college football games, teaming it up with a Kenko 1.4x extender. Again shooting from the stands.
I have a non IS 70-200 f/4 L that is a great lens but have not touched it for two years. I am keeping it because my son is getting into tennis and figure it would be good there. Just wish we did not have to watch all his matches behind a fence.
Daan B wrote:
Aren't the 70-200 2.8 IS and 200 2.8 comparable in terms of sharpness?
Well, my 70-200 2.8 IS is sharp, but not as sharp as I'd like at 200mm, so I bought the 200 2.8 and it is MUCH sharper (and lighter, and cheaper). If I know exactly where I and my subject will be I prefer the 200; for general walking around in unfamiliar territory the zoom is more flexible and has IS. Luckily I have 2 5D bodies so I can compare.
Aren't the 70-200 2.8 IS and 200 2.8 comparable in terms of sharpness?
In my exerience, the 200 2.8L II beat the pants off the 70-200 2.8L (which is sharper than the IS version).
If you want ultimate IQ, the prime is always better, period. It's even more so at higher ISO where you can't afford to "fix" it with added USM in post-processing because of the increase in noise.
Still haven't decided which way I am going I would love to get the zoom for the easy of use but IQ is very important also and like you said the IQ of primes is better
I'm sure people will give you different answers here, but I'd prefer the 70-200mm f/4 IS over the 200
+1
For me, it's the IS and the flexible & range from 70-200, instead of fix lens 200mm, (except when I do portrait, which 100mm or 135mm is a better choice).
Sam tran wrote:
+1
For me, it's the IS and the flexible & range from 70-200, instead of fix lens 200mm, (except when I do portrait, which 100mm or 135mm is a better choice).
But the 2.8 has that nice bokeh for isolating the subject. I myself have no trouble hand holding the lens of 200mm
The 200 2.8 is shorter, lighter and better balanced and therefore an overall much easier to handle lens than the 2.8 zoom in my opinion. IS would be nice, but handhelds are very doable with good lens holding technique.
