PetKal wrote:
However, the other three 70-200 zoom versions don't quite cut it IQ wise....the prime is better.
The prime may be better in certain aspects but the prime also lacks versatility and IS. The only reason I'd ever look into the 200II is for a cheaper, smaller/lighter, less obvious lens for candid street or travel photography and I'd likely choose 135/2 over it. And BTW, my 70-200/2.8IS cuts it just fine--especially IQ wise.
M Vers wrote:
The prime may be better in certain aspects but the prime also lacks versatility and IS. The only reason I'd ever look into the 200II is for a cheaper, smaller/lighter, less obvious lens for candid street or travel photography and I'd likely choose 135/2 over it. And BTW, my 70-200/2.8IS cuts it just fine--especially IQ wise.
Vers, if you would be kind enough to reread my post from which you are quoting, please try to translate it more carefully into the American dialect of your native village. When done, you should hopefully realize that I was not saying anything that would contradict your own experience.
PetKal wrote:
Vers, if you would be kind enough to reread my post from which you are quoting, please try to translate it more carefully into the American dialect of your native village. When done, you should hopefully realize that I was not saying anything that would contradict your own experience.
I can read your post just fine, you were referring to the f/4IS version were you not?
According to Canon Lens Work III the MTF shows the 135 to be a tiny bit better than the 200 but the 135 has one stop advantage. Looking at the MTF for 135+1,4x is really amazing.. I have to try this combo more often!
Bottom line is that the 200/2,8 is a very very nice lens but not better than the 135 especially when stopping the 135 down to 2,8!
Just got mine in a few days ago and took it out for a test-drive with which I won't bother you. Lovely lens, sharp as a tack, great bokeh and nice and inconspicuous compared to my 70-200 2.8 IS.
Just need to re-learn how to shoot a non-IS tele. Dang, the image in the viewfinder was wobbling all around. Makes me wonder how I ever managed to shoot anything when I was a Pentax guy back in the film days. Makes one appreciate IS though.
M Vers wrote:
Actually, kind sir, if you re-read my post you would notice I never said anything about my copy of the 70-200/2.8IS being "sharper", in fact the only thing I said about it was that it "cuts it just fine". Perhaps the translator you ran it through is broken?
Very nice images, Vers. However, in order for something to be capable of "cutting", it has to be "sharp" (or very hot, or under very high pressure).
PetKal wrote:
Very nice images, Vers. However, in order for something to be capable of "cutting", it has to be "sharp" (or very hot, or under very high pressure).
And you're telling me the images posted aren't sharp? As I said...my 70-200/2.8IS cuts it just fine--even when it comes to sharpness. I'd also consider it an extremely hot lens. Do you agree...or would you like to extend this conversation?
M Vers wrote:
And you're telling me the images posted aren't sharp? As I said...my 70-200/2.8IS cuts it just fine--even when it comes to sharpness. I'd also consider it an extremely hot lens. Do you agree...or would you like to extend this conversation?
lidesun wrote:
No one is saying 70-200/2.8L IS is not a good lens, and not sharp, but it just can't compete with 200/2.8L @ 200mm @ f/2.8, that's the truth, anyway !
That is where your wrong, in fact a certain someone suggested the 70-200 "doesn't cut it"...when it can and does. Either way if I were to make 11x14 prints as a comparison between the two I highly doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference...and that's what counts--Prints, and that's the truth. If you want to obsess over 100% crops and MTF charts on the internet be my guess.
WebDog wrote:
According to Canon Lens Work III the MTF shows the 135 to be a tiny bit better than the 200 but the 135 has one stop advantage. Looking at the MTF for 135+1,4x is really amazing.. I have to try this combo more often! Bottom line is that the 200/2,8 is a very very nice lens but not better than the 135 especially when stopping the 135 down to 2,8!
So?
I own both the 135/2.0, the 200/2.8 II as well as the 1.4x Extender. Thus I have no particular interest in wanting the one to be better than the other. But the truth must be spoken nevertheless, and the 200 is better. Not much better, but still somewhat. I then compare 2.8 against 2.8.
Both the 135 and the 200 are better than all 70-200 zooms to which I have compared them, and the difference between the prime and the zoom is just a tiny hair larger when the zoom is compared to the 200.
In addition, a small loss of optical quality when I attach my Extender is visible with the 135 but hardly with the 200.
I would like to know why some people believe that the 135 is superior to the 200 when it is the other way around - albeit with a tiny margin.
I have 135L, 200/2.8L and 70-200/4IS. All are simply stunning, but 135L is the sharpest of them all. 200/2.8 is nearly as sharp, but not quite. From everything I have read this seems to be most people's experience, but I'm sure there are copy variations, which would explain why Bogatyr's 200L is sharper than his 135L.
(Hi, btw! Nice to see someone else from Norway. Well, I'm actually Swedish, but I live in Norway since 2004. )
My 70-200/4IS seems to be very nearly as sharp as the 200L. The zoom gives more saturated colors - the prime better bokeh. The zoom can zoom - the prime has better contrast. I planned to sell one of them, but can't decide which one, so maybe I'll keep both...
, aint my kid 
Besides--they loved the shot.