Well I got a loaner 200/2 from CPS and have been finding things to go out and shoot with it. So far I love it bu I can't decide if it's $2k better then my 70-200 2.8 IS II lol
I am going to do more side by side testing.
I'm thinking the 70-200 can't create the same images, similar yes, but just not the same.
Just like a Mustang or a Ferrari can get you from point A to point B,
But the Mustang, it's no Ferrari.
Jonesy wrote:
Well I got a loaner 200/2 from CPS and have been finding things to go out and shoot with it. So far I love it bu I can't decide if it's $2k better then my 70-200 2.8 IS II lol I am going to do more side by side testing.
Depends on how you look at it. One should really remember that nominal lens aperture @focal length is the most expensive commodity.
Another extreme example: 100-400 vs. 400 DO. If anything, my feeling is the zoom has better IQ. Yet, the prime is $4,000 more expensive. That one stop of light (+ relatively low weight) is quite expensive, eh ?
Nice images on your page. The boy on the swing is particularly good. A few weeks ago I became a 200/2 owner and am really enjoying it. If I had a lens half its weight and cost that achieved the same look at 2.8, but couldn't offer the larger apertures 2 to 2.5, I think I'd still understand why the 2.0 is so important. But like you, I have been impressed with the results shown here with the new zoom lens.
Jonesy I have the 200/2 & 70-200 IS I and my feeling is I do not need to upgrade to a 70-200 IS II. Then again I do not shoot for a living so the advancement on the II is more of a want than a need.
Seeming you have the II already I see no harm in getting the 200/2 though you just missed the rebate period by 4 days.
Price during rebate was $4,700 I believe. I thought it was a rip off at first but considering the weakening dollar to me it is a bargain. From my point of view the 200/2's price went down by say $500 equivalent since May of last year.
Yeah I know I missed it! I was waiting for the loaner to come in to try before I put the money down on one. If I bought the 200 i'd have to sell the 70-200 at the moment...
Great shots! I just picked up a 200 2.0L a couple of weeks ago and haven't had time to use it the way I want to as I have been busy and it has been raining here a lot. I absolutely love this lens from what I have seen so far. It blows my 70-200 2.8 IS (ver 1) away. I struggled with this purchase a bit as I didn't see a huge difference between the 200 and my 135L. But the extra reach and IS, and ability to put a 1.4 and have a 280 2.8 IS is what won me over. I sold my 300 2.8 IS and am very pleased. I will be using the 200 with 1.4tc this weekend to shoot some soccer. I also took some test shots inside at 1/50th of a second and they were perfect.
Once I did a MA of +4 on my 1Ds Mark III, the 200L became the sharpest lens have ever used. And shooting at f2.0 makes the eyes very sharp while softening the rest of the facial features, produces a very nice look. If you can afford it, go for it.
Jonesy wrote:
Yeah I know I missed it! I was waiting for the loaner to come in to try before I put the money down on one. If I bought the 200 i'd have to sell the 70-200 at the moment...
I find myself keeping my 70-200 in the dry box 99% of the time. Only bringing it out when I need a zoom.
Jonesy wrote:
I can see the difference no doubt bout it....
Then only you have the answer for yourself as what the key factor for you to make the decision is I can't decide if it's $2k better then my 70-200 2.8 IS II
You want the 200/2.0L IS to make WOW for your wedding or other stuffs, but most of the times for wedding etc, the Wow factor is not from great bokeh, but from the moment you captured, of course great lighting and composition as well...
70-200/2.8L IS II is more useful lens for wedding in general......
Just wait for 1-2 years, and when you don't care to spend the extra $2000 to buy the f/2 lens due to your business grow, buy the f/2 lens, otherwise I see no need for it even it's a great lens you want...
you'll never get this kind of bokeh like you did in these pictures, if they were taken with the 70-200, also the 200mm IS sharper than the 70-200II and has slightly more contrast
