Hi I'm contemplating whether to sell my 70-200mm and get the 200mm. I like the zoom on the 70-200mm but I do encounter places where I wish I had a 2.8. The 70-200 1/2.8 is too heavy for me. On the other hand I am intrigued by reports of the shiokness of holding a canon telephoto prime L lens. I normally use telephotos for zoo, birdpark, concerts, portrait (minimal) and botanical gardens (with extension tubes)
70-200mm 1/4 or 200mm 1/2.8?
- Thread starter kingcrab
- Start date
- Status
what other lens(es) do you have? for example if you have something in the 2x-1xx range, you might not notice the loss of the 70-150ish range. however if you only have a 1x-55 (for example) you may need that range.
i also like the shiokness of a tele prime - i have the 135L and i find that i can crop if necessary, and the f2 aperture is quite useful.
i also like the shiokness of a tele prime - i have the 135L and i find that i can crop if necessary, and the f2 aperture is quite useful.
200 f2.8 II was my first L, after that, itchy backside buy the 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) and sold the 200 f2.8. End up almost never use the 70-200 because of the size. At the end, sell away the 70-200 and get myself a 200 f2.8 (version 1) at half the price.
It all boils down to personal preference & style. I prefer the small size & black color of the 200 f2.8, no body will even thought that is a relatively long tele from the size of it, and the weight, the ease of handling, plus the built in hood. Try look around for a 200 f2.8 version one in the B&S forum, should goes around $700 range. sharper then the 70-200 f4/f2.8, lighter, smaller, and it's a f2.8
It all boils down to personal preference & style. I prefer the small size & black color of the 200 f2.8, no body will even thought that is a relatively long tele from the size of it, and the weight, the ease of handling, plus the built in hood. Try look around for a 200 f2.8 version one in the B&S forum, should goes around $700 range. sharper then the 70-200 f4/f2.8, lighter, smaller, and it's a f2.8
The 200 MkII is not particularly much sharper than the 70-200 f4, it does not have IS, so the only advantage is one stop faster than the f4. Usually when I sacrifice the versatility of a zoom I demand more, e.g. 2 stops or more /longer focal length/ IS/lengendary sharpness, etc. But that's just me. For me, 85, 100, 135 or 300 have greater advantages. BUT if the 200f2.8 is the focal length AND f-stop that you need, then you choice is clear.
i just bought 70-200Lf4 IS. it is lighter. i was also choosing between 70-200L f2.8. but ended up choosing f4 cos fr landscape, etc. there will less tendency of me using f2.8L:embrass:
It's interesting, I'm into prime, and normally my rationale for trade-off the compact & fast apperture for zoom is provided the range is significant enough and without compromising the sharpness. Eg. for the 70-200 F4, I would not compromise the f2.8 for f4 for the zoom, and at a slightly worse off sharpness (base on public review). So it depends on where is your baseline and how you measure trade-off vs your primary concern.
Well the other thing is that my other lens is a 17-85. Though I plan to get a 100mm 1/2 soon for low light indoor shoots. Is the gap from 100mm to 200mm replaceable by cropping? Will I lose a lot of the image?
Yup yup. I'm looking out for a 200mm mkI as I hear it's the same quality wise as the mkII. I saw someone selling it on buy and sell for 750. Think he sold it already though....
Yes, you are right, it is your baseline and how you measure trade-off vs primary concern. The 200 might be the best choice.
The zoom-range of the 70-200, while not great, is significant enough to cover 3 or 4 common prime focal lengths, namely 85, 100, 135 and 200.
For most people, pixel peepers included, using the 70-200L f4, would not be considered as a compromise on sharpness.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=452&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=104&CameraComp=452&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2
Here an extract of a review http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens lacks the versatility of a zoom, does not have IS and does not have a wider aperture than some of the zooms available with this focal length. These are the main three shortfalls of this lens - And for these reasons, I will usually use my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens when I need the 200mm focal length. Canon's line of 70-200mm L lenses are excellent optically. These zooms will not beat the prime in optical quality, but they come very close. At most identical apertures, the 200 f/2.8 L is slightly sharper. The f/2.8 zoom lenses are also much larger, heavier and more obvious when in use (the 200 f/2.8 II is currently Canon's longest focal length L lens that is black). Some of the zooms have IS and weather sealing advantages over the prime.
If you require f/2.8 at 200 and can't afford the more versatile Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens, the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens is the right choice.
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is also more versatile (in mm options) and less expensive than the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens, but is not as fast (aperture).
If you need only the 200mm focal length and don't need IS or weather sealing, your decision is easy. Buy the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens. It is an excellent value.
If you simply want the best image quality you can get at 200mm, the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens is for you.
Last edited:
200mm f/2.8L is a specialised lens, while 70-200 f/4L is a versatile lens primarily used outdoors or indoors with flash. If f/2.8 is what you require, go for the 200mm. If you're unsure, go for the zoom.
Cheers,
Zexun
Cheers,
Zexun
People say the Mk1 is better than the MkII, but as the mkI is rather old, you should check if CSC still carry spare parts for this lens. Hope you find what you want!
Cropping can never give you the same field of view, as well as the compression of longer lenses.
If you're a discerning photographer, you can't really crop to replace a longer lens.
Cropping for shot size is different than cropping to "simulate" another focal length. For birders wanting a tighter shot, it is a given.
Some people crop is to get rid of distracting elements... Simulating focal lengths is not a sin too... In some situations you are forced to stand where you are and no where nearer... would you all rather want to maintain the "no crop policy" than to not take the shot at all?
Last edited:
Cropping won't give you the same FoV, and neither will it give similar compression. Nobody said it was a sin, though.
- Status
Similar threads
