This is just my assumption. I have no facts to argue with, so you may indeed be
correct. One thing I did notice in the EF Lens Work III book is that Canon mentions
the following for the mk II lens, but since I don't have an older edition of EF Lens
Work, I don't know if this also applies to the mk I version:
"The new rear focus design which reduces the overall weight of the moving lens elements
and improves focusing precision also compensates for aberrations."
I expect this also applies to the mk I. But Canon doesn't really say clearly either way.
Regards,
Tim
Here is a link below, from a pretty decent and knowledgeable photographer,
who states there is no optical difference whatsoever between the 200/2.8
Mk I or Mk II lens - and that they are "optically and mechanically identical."
Interestingly, he notes that the 80-200/2.8L "Magic Drainpipe" is the design
the 200/2.8L "Primepipe" is based on, hence the close synonymous nickname.
Given there nearly identical sharpness at 200mm this should not be surprising.
Thanks for the link, tinke. I didn't realize Petteri had reviewed this lens.
I like his site. He's opinionated, and that makes for interesting reading.
He is clearly a value oriented buyer of lenses, but in the case
of this prime, I think it's just great, and would be even at a much
higher price.
Tony Rogers wrote:
This is a good, affordable telephoto lens, but you might get more use from the amazing 135mm f2L - it's a few more dollars, but it's another level up. It's a fine portrait lens, and useful for indoor sports. It's also extremely fast to focus (I contend that sometimes it focuses BEFORE you press the button ).
Now I happen to own - and use - both of these lenses. Both the EF 200mm 2.8 II and the EF 135mm 2.0.
The 135 may be a more versatile portrait lens because it has 2.0 as max aperture and because the focal length is more useful indoors. Whereas the 200 is a brilliant sports and action lens which is also well suited for both outdoor portraits and animals which are not too shy.
But please substantiate the claim that the 135 2.0 is "another level up" from the 200 2.8 II. Owning both, I can testify that the 200 is a bit sharper, but that is insignificant.
Here I have compared the two. The shots were the best in a series, so this illustrates the quality of both lenses. "Blender" is "aperture" in Norwegian:
Bogatyr and Mark, nice! I've had the Mark II version for a couple years and have always been extremely happy with it. Even takes the 1.4x quite well if you need something closer to 300.
Yakim:
I wonder where our "Resident Guru" TMonkey went. He was all over this thread about the improved coatings,
and claiming I had misquoted him (when I did nothing of the kind). Didn't even show up to defend the Photodo MTF tests.
No kinda apology or nothin. Sheesh. Just when I was beginning to think that he could levitate.
tinke wrote:
Yakim:
I wonder where our "Resident Guru" TMonkey went. He was all over this thread about the improved coatings,
and claiming I had misquoted him (when I did nothing of the kind). Didn't even show up to defend the Photodo MTF tests.
No kinda apology or nothin. Sheesh. Just when I was beginning to think that he could levitate.
I've got side by sides at some of my favorite shooting spots with both lenses (different times, of course) and cannot see any difference the improved coatings make.
Kinda like the new and improved coatings on the 85L Mk II maybe, where the end result is a lens that tests out to be not as sharp (albeit focuses much faster).
Fortunately this is not the case with the Primepipe....wrote Tinke
trenchmonkey wrote:
Hey, the OP asked for differences. Canon lists improved coatings...I made NO claim to seeing any difference in IQ
You're gonna quote me...kindly stick to the facts, man.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Can you please show where?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
tinke wrote:
Yakim:
I wonder where our "Resident Guru" TMonkey went. He was all over this thread about the improved coatings,
and claiming I had misquoted him (when I did nothing of the kind). Didn't even show up to defend the Photodo MTF tests.
No kinda apology or nothin. Sheesh. Just when I was beginning to think that he could levitate.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I'm sure Will will be back in no time.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I guess we'll find out soon enough if he is gentleman enough, eh man.
baumgarten0712 wrote:
I just picked this lens (version II) up to finish off my prime collection (35L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 200L). This lens focuses very fast! You will not be disappointed with the AF speed. As for sharpness, it is among the best. It is very sharp wide open and gets even better (hard to believe) stopped down. It is optically better than the 70-200 2.8 @ 200mm and the zoom is a sharp lens. For the price, you cannot go wrong with the 200L 2.8.
i also added this to my prime list (24L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 200/2.8IIL). AF is fast and IQ is two thumbs up
bestfromnw wrote:
200mm is a fine lens, but for a couple more bills you could get 70-200 which is very similar in IQ while being a zoom lens
Since you don't specify which 70-200 you are referring to, I shall assume you meant the f/4 IS version. Then I would agree that a good copy of that zoom can at least equal, if not better, the 200 f/2.8 prime sharpness. So yes, I'd also pay a few more bills in order to get that particular zoom, if I was faced with having to choose.
However, the other three 70-200 zoom versions don't quite cut it IQ wise....the prime is better.
PetKal wrote:
Since you don't specify which 70-200 you are referring to, I shall assume you meant the f/4 IS version. Then I would agree that a good copy of that zoom can at least equal, if not better, the 200 f/2.8 prime sharpness. So yes, I'd also pay a few more bills in order to get that particular zoom, if I was faced with having to choose. However, the other three 70-200 zoom versions don't quite cut it IQ wise....the prime is better.
Well, as the 2.8-lenses are going to give twice the shutter speed as a 4.0-lens in the same circumstances I would rather pick the prime or one of the 70-200 2.8 zooms. Practically speaking, the photographer who often finds him- or herself in situations where it is difficult or not possible at all to move in relation to the subject is in need of a zoom. Sports arenas are often locked areas, for example. Then a zoom is a necessity, but 2.8 still is twice as fast as 4.0. That makes a great deal of a difference.
bogatyr wrote:
Well, as the 2.8-lenses are going to give twice the shutter speed as a 4.0-lens in the same circumstances I would rather pick the prime or one of the 70-200 2.8 zooms. Practically speaking, the photographer who often finds him- or herself in situations where it is difficult or not possible at all to move in relation to the subject is in need of a zoom. Sports arenas are often locked areas, for example. Then a zoom is a necessity, but 2.8 still is twice as fast as 4.0. That makes a great deal of a difference.
Bogatyr
If one wanted too, a combo of one of the 85s and the 200 f/2.8 should cover about any situation in an arena if you need 200mm and below. The 85 f/1.8 would almost fit in a shirt pocket. Together, they are both lighter then any 70-200 and are black and fast.
Back in the film days I had an all-prime combo - 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8, 200/2.8, 300/4 IS - but since I've transformed from a being a prime-nut to IS-nut. Today I try to combine both so I am totally nuts.
Eighty posts about the 200 f/2.8? Amazing. I think this one thread surpasses all previous 200 f/2.8 posts combined. I owned this lens for a while, it was wonderful but not a focal length I ever used much.
halie wrote:
Eighty posts about the 200 f/2.8? Amazing. I think this one thread surpasses all previous 200 f/2.8 posts combined. I owned this lens for a while, it was wonderful but not a focal length I ever used much.
+1
And now that I've sold mine, it's only natural that I'm thinking about buying it yet again.
I just sold a 200 2.8 about a month ago, and I am expecting another one via UPS at any time. I kept telling myself that 70-200 was the way to go, I tried it finally but still prefer the 200 2.8(+ an 85mm). Live and learn I guess.
jcw1982 wrote:
I just sold a 200 2.8 about a month ago, and I am expecting another one via UPS at any time. I kept telling myself that 70-200 was the way to go, I tried it finally but still prefer the 200 2.8(+ an 85mm). Live and learn I guess.
It's no comparison at the 200mm end between the two lens regarding the sharpness when wide open. So 200/2.8L is a keeper....
Just when I was beginning to think that he could levitate.
