I had a 200 2.8 Mk I and it was nice and sharp, and the built-in-hood was convenient, but not sufficient for all situations. I recently picked up a Mk II and it is noticeable sharper, and I would even say a hair sharper than my 135L.
michael49 wrote:
I just got my 200 f/2.8 mkI- picked it up in the B&S here - what an amazing lens. It was built in '95 but it looks like its brand new!! I just did some tests vs my 70-200 f/4 which I always considered a very sharp lens and the 200 just smokes it in terms of sharpness, color and contrast. I think I'm in love.
michael49 wrote:
One of my first shots with this lens, just amazing...
Congratulations, the 200/2.8 is a real steal if you consider the IQ, package and price.
Your observation also reflects my scepticism when people comment that the 70-200/4(IS) is sharper than the 135/2 and 200/2.8 primes. Online charts be damned I say...
I have the Mk II and love it. Same size and colour (black) as the 70-300 consumer zoom, better quality than the immense 70-200 f2.8 zoom. And telephoto zooms are always used at the long end anyway so why bother with the zoom?!
pgharle wrote:
I have the Mk II and love it. Same size and colour (black) as the 70-300 consumer zoom, better quality than the immense 70-200 f2.8 zoom. And telephoto zooms are always used at the long end anyway so why bother with the zoom?!
Why use zoom? I agree most shots I take area t 200 but when I am shooting LL baseball and I stand behind the plate I am at 70mm. So I guess zoom does have it' place. I am seriously thinking of going prime with the 200 plus 85 1.8, 50 1.4
Seriously? I use my 70-200 at all FL's, the same goes for the 100-400. Versatility ftw.