Aren\'t the 70-200 2.8 IS and 200 2.8 comparable in terms of sharpness?
In my exerience, the 200 2.8L II beat the pants off the 70-200 2.8L (which is sharper than the IS version).
If you want ultimate IQ, the prime is always better, period. It\'s even more so at higher ISO where you can\'t afford to \"fix\" it with added USM in post-processing because of the increase in noise.
Oct 06, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Previous versions of Jay Adeff's message #6245592 « 200mm 2.8 II vs 70-200 f/4 IS »
