For sports, wildlife and such, I feel it is just neither feasible nor fair to compare modern auto lenses, especially if provisioned with USM and IS, to any manual lenses in similar FL and aperture.
In fact, we don\'t even have to go to Canon\'s top of the line lenses like 200 f/1.8 and 200 f/2.0 IS. Even much cheaper lenses like 200 f/2.8 prime (1) and 135L(2) perform very nicely for what I like to photograph. In the end, fast action is fast action, therefore I try to suggest these two lenses as great value alternatives to the 200 f/2 IS (and 200 f/1.8).
For many folks, getting 80% performance for 15% cost may be a good way to go.
200 f/2.8 and 135L in action.
Nov 05, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Previous versions of PetKal's message #7736698 « What's your favorite? 200/1.8 or 200/2 »
