I have both the 200/2.8 L and the 70-200/4 L IS.
From my own tests on a Canon 5D (tripod, MLU) the 200/2.8 is very sharp but the 70-200 is 95% as sharp. The 200/2.8 has a bit more contrast but the main difference between the two is distorsion. The 200/2.8 exhibits almost no distorsion while the 70-200 at 200 shows quite a lot of distorsion which is quite visible for architectural shots. However this is quite easily corrected with PT lens or DXO.
Overall I think the 70-200/4 L IS is the better choice. It has the versatility of the zoom, superbe sharpness, IS and the distorsion is easy to correct.
I have owned the f/4, then the f/4 IS then the f/2.8 IS. For one reason or another, I have disliked them all relative to my satisfaction with my other lenses. Though some of the best shots have come from these lenses (usually in the outdoors), my keeper rate is much lower. The argument for me about IS being more versatile doesn't hold any water, because I shoot mostly people with these lenses, at events with dismal light and no possibility of flash. IS avails me nothing in these venues, when you need at least 1/200s to stop people's facial movements and hand gestures. Combine that with the fact that I almost never shoot a 70-200 at anything less than 200mm, the primepipe seems like a better choice for me. If the AF/sharpness really is better, it'll be worth it, because the 5D can't reliably focus when conditions are 1600 ISO, 1/100 and f/2.8, even on the middle sensor. Furthermore, resolution really takes a dive at that ISO. That's not the lens' fault, but a contributing factor.
mfurman wrote:
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
Well I am at it again had the 2.8 non IS and loved it. I sold it and bought the 4 IS and it's one of the sharpest lens you can get imo. I then made a trade giving up a G-10 and picked up the 200 2.8 so now I have the 4 IS and the 200. This is a great set up but silly me I can not sit still so now I am trying to sell both lenses and take advantage of the Canon rebates getting the 70-200 2.8 IS. I only use the lens for shooting LL baseball and FB and when I shoot my main lens is the 100-400. So I think the 2.8 IS would do me well for the sport shots as many of our games are under cloudy raining conditions with bad lighting
Another vote for the 200 2.8. Its size makes it great as a bring along lens and it works well with extenders. I used mine on a trip to Yellowstone and Glacier and got what I consider to be very good shots.
I love it for professional sports (I know, no sports) because it's black and smallish and when I walk in with an extender on my camera body and the 200 2.8 in my fanny pack no one freaks out. It's nice and short so I don't hit the guy in front of me when he jumps up and down, altho actually I would like to sometimes.
trenchmonkey wrote: Jordan, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Nobody buys the 135 f2L to shoot at f4. .................
Exactly. I had the aperture on mine removed to save weight. It is a very different lens than the 70-200 4 IS, which I also have. No plan on selling either.
Edit: Also, if you have the 135/2 and a FF camera a better choice may be to buy a 40/50D. Maybe cheaper, no more bulky, and f2.
Especially worthwhile if it shares batteries with FF.
Geez I use my 135L at any aperture. Why just use it wide open, when it makes a stellar landscape lens too. It's sharp all the way through the range. Even if a 70-200 f/4 were as sharp at f/4, it still 2 stops slower and the bokeh at f/4 isn't in the same class as at f/2. To me their not an either or proposition, I have to own both (well I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS after selling the 70-200 f/4L).
As for the 200 f/2.8, if you always needing 200 then get it. I found that the 135L + 1.4 gives such good results I didn't bother with the 200 f/2.8 and there have been plenty of arguments over how good that combo is. The 200 will have better AF though.
Geez I use my 135L at any aperture. Why just use it wide open, when it makes a stellar landscape lens too. It's sharp all the way through the range. Even if a 70-200 f/4 were as sharp at f/4, it still 2 stops slower and the bokeh at f/4 isn't in the same class as at f/2. To me their not an either or proposition, I have to own both (well I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS after selling the 70-200 f/4L).
As for the 200 f/2.8, if you always needing 200 then get it. I found that the 135L + 1.4 gives such good results I didn't bother with the 200 f/2.8 and there have been plenty of arguments over how good that combo is. The 200 will have better AF though.
Jordan, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Nobody buys the 135 f2L to shoot at f4. .................
It is a very different lens than the 70-200 4 IS, which I also have. No plan on selling either.