Harpreet
Leading Member
which is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
70-200 f2.8 L lens Compared to 200 f2.8 L USM II prime lens
- Thread starter Harpreet
- Start date
irm
Senior Member
I have both 70-200 IS and the 200 f2.8.which is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
At the moment I think they are both reaonably equal, but I am still learning how to drive the IS lens.
I am also experimenting with bioth lenses and the Canon TCs.
The weather around here hasn't been that good to allow for any serious photography with the 70-200.
Mind you I probably have sufficient stock at 2.8 from both lenses to do some comparisions. I went and photographed the local baseball team at practice on a couple of days using both lenses.
--
Ian the pbase supporter.
http://pbase.com/ianm_au
An amateur with dreams of being a good to excellent photographer.
GagBagger
Senior Member
I no longer have the 200 Prime because the 70-200/IS was, in every test I shot, equal at virtually every aperture. Granted, there is a sizeable price difference on the order of 3X the price for the zoom, but don't be concerned with a quality drop-off if you upgrade.I have both 70-200 IS and the 200 f2.8.which is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
It's worth every penny.
Brendan
--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...
victorw
Member
I am also interested in people's thoughts on this one, or perhaps 200/2.8 70-200 mm f4 comparison as they are similarly priced....
victor
victor
irm wrote:
KJbruin
Forum Enthusiast
A 135 f2 + 1.4x TC would also be interesting to see in comparison
which is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
irm
Senior Member
When the weather improves over here I will get around to it.which is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
What I plan on testing are
70-200 F2.8L IS
135 F2L
200 F2.8L
TC 1.4
TC 2.0
But I really need some good weather so I can get consistent light. According to the weather bureau that isn't likely to happen for another week.
I plan to do my tests outside so I can get at least 8 metres between camera and test object to remove the minimum focus distance issue.
--
Ian the pbase supporter.
http://pbase.com/ianm_au
An amateur with dreams of being a good to excellent photographer.
Marc Davison
Member
I have just swapped from the 200 2.8 to the 70-200 f4, the main reason was versatility. I would say from taking real pictures not charts and all that nonsense, the 200 2.8 appears optically better and has nicer bokeh. It also has a faster AF and hunts alot less thanks to the extra stop of brightness.I am also interested in people's thoughts on this one, or perhaps
200/2.8 70-200 mm f4 comparison as they are similarly priced....
the 200 2.8l is a great sleeper lens, I've only swapepd as I've just got a 300f4IS as my longest lens so the 200 wasn't getting used, whereas the 70-200 gives me more versatility.
--
Marc
--------------------------------------
http://aurora.homedns.org
Harpreet
Leading Member
hey can we do portraits with 70-200mm f2.8 L lens using 85mm focal length and r they as good as done by f1.4 85mm usm prime lens
I have just swapped from the 200 2.8 to the 70-200 f4, the mainI am also interested in people's thoughts on this one, or perhaps
200/2.8 70-200 mm f4 comparison as they are similarly priced....
reason was versatility. I would say from taking real pictures not
charts and all that nonsense, the 200 2.8 appears optically better
and has nicer bokeh. It also has a faster AF and hunts alot less
thanks to the extra stop of brightness.
the 200 2.8l is a great sleeper lens, I've only swapepd as I've
just got a 300f4IS as my longest lens so the 200 wasn't getting
used, whereas the 70-200 gives me more versatility.
--
Marc
--------------------------------------
http://aurora.homedns.org
I also have all 3 of these lenses. And I have owned all 3 EF 70-200 lenses and the performance was similar across all of them. I haven't done any controlled testing but from everything I have read, the 200 2.8 is sharper; its too bad its not slightly faster, then would be even more popular.
My thinking was to go with the f4 zoom for great lighting and then pull out either the 135L or the 200L for lesser lighting conditions. The 135L has been consistently sharper for me than L telezooms I have owned and I am hoping the same for the 200L and 300 f4L, just got the latter two.
My thinking was to go with the f4 zoom for great lighting and then pull out either the 135L or the 200L for lesser lighting conditions. The 135L has been consistently sharper for me than L telezooms I have owned and I am hoping the same for the 200L and 300 f4L, just got the latter two.
I have just swapped from the 200 2.8 to the 70-200 f4, the mainI am also interested in people's thoughts on this one, or perhaps
200/2.8 70-200 mm f4 comparison as they are similarly priced....
reason was versatility. I would say from taking real pictures not
charts and all that nonsense, the 200 2.8 appears optically better
and has nicer bokeh. It also has a faster AF and hunts alot less
thanks to the extra stop of brightness.
the 200 2.8l is a great sleeper lens, I've only swapepd as I've
just got a 300f4IS as my longest lens so the 200 wasn't getting
used, whereas the 70-200 gives me more versatility.
--
Marc
--------------------------------------
http://aurora.homedns.org
Harpreet
Leading Member
randy,
could 70-200 f2.8 L do the portraits as good as done by 85mm f1.4 usm prime lens
could 70-200 f2.8 L do the portraits as good as done by 85mm f1.4 usm prime lens
My thinking was to go with the f4 zoom for great lighting and then
pull out either the 135L or the 200L for lesser lighting
conditions. The 135L has been consistently sharper for me than L
telezooms I have owned and I am hoping the same for the 200L and
300 f4L, just got the latter two.
I have just swapped from the 200 2.8 to the 70-200 f4, the mainI am also interested in people's thoughts on this one, or perhaps
200/2.8 70-200 mm f4 comparison as they are similarly priced....
reason was versatility. I would say from taking real pictures not
charts and all that nonsense, the 200 2.8 appears optically better
and has nicer bokeh. It also has a faster AF and hunts alot less
thanks to the extra stop of brightness.
the 200 2.8l is a great sleeper lens, I've only swapepd as I've
just got a 300f4IS as my longest lens so the 200 wasn't getting
used, whereas the 70-200 gives me more versatility.
--
Marc
--------------------------------------
http://aurora.homedns.org
Volney Powell99917
Well-known member
I have the 70-200f4L and the 200/2.8L prime. Both are Great.
My first was the 70-200f4L, perfect for outdoor daylight use. Great color and contrast plus the price is right!
Than I wanted something I could use in low light and with better background blur. Was going to get the 70-2002.8L IS but it was to expensive.
Decided to try the 200/2.8L prime that was 3x less the price of the zoom. plus I already owned the 85mm1.8 which gives me the shorter coverage.
The 200/2.8L is sharp across the board and focuses quicker than the 70-200f4L. Plus you can put a TC on it and it's still sharp. It fits well in my lens line up and the pics from it are amazing.
depending on the situation, I still use both lenses. I have not tried the 70-200L 2.8IS, but have seen it and its much bigger than the prime and F4 zoom. If money was no object I would have got that in the first place, But now I have 3 good lenses for the same price of 1.
My first was the 70-200f4L, perfect for outdoor daylight use. Great color and contrast plus the price is right!
Than I wanted something I could use in low light and with better background blur. Was going to get the 70-2002.8L IS but it was to expensive.
Decided to try the 200/2.8L prime that was 3x less the price of the zoom. plus I already owned the 85mm1.8 which gives me the shorter coverage.
The 200/2.8L is sharp across the board and focuses quicker than the 70-200f4L. Plus you can put a TC on it and it's still sharp. It fits well in my lens line up and the pics from it are amazing.
depending on the situation, I still use both lenses. I have not tried the 70-200L 2.8IS, but have seen it and its much bigger than the prime and F4 zoom. If money was no object I would have got that in the first place, But now I have 3 good lenses for the same price of 1.
RdgRnr
Forum Enthusiast
I have the 70-200/f2.8L and was toying with the idea of getting the 200/f2.8L. I tried a friends 200/f2.8L and did some comparison shooting.which is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
I could not see any real world difference between the two lenses.
On paper the 200/f2.8 should be sharper (if you main hobby is photographing test cards), but in real world photography you won't see any difference.
Also, the 70-200/f2.8L gives you a lot more versatility.
KJbruin
Forum Enthusiast
i'm guessing that your testing was done under the conditions you do most of your shooting. under less than optimal shooting conditions (i.e. available light, wide open aperature) the performance of the two lenses may not be so similar whereas stopped down they probably would. also a consideration is how well the zoom and primes do in maintaining image fidelity with the 1.4x and 2x TC.
I have the 70-200/f2.8L and was toying with the idea of getting thewhich is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
200/f2.8L. I tried a friends 200/f2.8L and did some comparison
shooting.
I could not see any real world difference between the two lenses.
On paper the 200/f2.8 should be sharper (if you main hobby is
photographing test cards), but in real world photography you won't
see any difference.
Also, the 70-200/f2.8L gives you a lot more versatility.
I think the 85 1.8 is a sharper lens and has better bokeh. But all the EF70-200's work well for portraits plus they give you ease of framing for candids. The real benefit I see the in the 1.8 lens is for indoor sports, very fast focusing and that big aperture. If you meant the 85 1.2L, I haven't used it but many say its the ultimate portrait lens but slower to focus.
My thinking was to go with the f4 zoom for great lighting and then
pull out either the 135L or the 200L for lesser lighting
conditions. The 135L has been consistently sharper for me than L
telezooms I have owned and I am hoping the same for the 200L and
300 f4L, just got the latter two.
I have just swapped from the 200 2.8 to the 70-200 f4, the mainI am also interested in people's thoughts on this one, or perhaps
200/2.8 70-200 mm f4 comparison as they are similarly priced....
reason was versatility. I would say from taking real pictures not
charts and all that nonsense, the 200 2.8 appears optically better
and has nicer bokeh. It also has a faster AF and hunts alot less
thanks to the extra stop of brightness.
the 200 2.8l is a great sleeper lens, I've only swapepd as I've
just got a 300f4IS as my longest lens so the 200 wasn't getting
used, whereas the 70-200 gives me more versatility.
--
Marc
--------------------------------------
http://aurora.homedns.org
Harpreet
Leading Member
wht u mean by "framing for candids"
My thinking was to go with the f4 zoom for great lighting and then
pull out either the 135L or the 200L for lesser lighting
conditions. The 135L has been consistently sharper for me than L
telezooms I have owned and I am hoping the same for the 200L and
300 f4L, just got the latter two.
I have just swapped from the 200 2.8 to the 70-200 f4, the mainI am also interested in people's thoughts on this one, or perhaps
200/2.8 70-200 mm f4 comparison as they are similarly priced....
reason was versatility. I would say from taking real pictures not
charts and all that nonsense, the 200 2.8 appears optically better
and has nicer bokeh. It also has a faster AF and hunts alot less
thanks to the extra stop of brightness.
the 200 2.8l is a great sleeper lens, I've only swapepd as I've
just got a 300f4IS as my longest lens so the 200 wasn't getting
used, whereas the 70-200 gives me more versatility.
--
Marc
--------------------------------------
http://aurora.homedns.org
Chankit
Member
So I've heard, possibly from the luminous landscape.
Derek L
Well-known member
--I have the 70-200/f2.8L and was toying with the idea of getting thewhich is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
200/f2.8L. I tried a friends 200/f2.8L and did some comparison
shooting.
I could not see any real world difference between the two lenses.
On paper the 200/f2.8 should be sharper (if you main hobby is
photographing test cards), but in real world photography you won't
see any difference.
Also, the 70-200/f2.8L gives you a lot more versatility.
Derek Leung
http://www.pbase.com/dleung
That says a LOT for the zoom !!!!I have both 70-200 IS and the 200 f2.8.which is sharper and better at telephoto among the two lenses.
At the moment I think they are both reaonably equal,
I have the 70-200 LIS and the 135/2. I too find them very close in quality though the 135mm is sharper wide open.
Its my favourite lens and I would not mind it if it weighed one Kg more than it does now ( Still lighter than 3 primes)
This is an important point.
The DSLR's have lower resolution and smaller frames. Hence they do not test the best lens to their extreme.
When the sensor is the limiting factor and both lens easily outdo the sensor, both lens will appear to be equal.
The DSLR's have lower resolution and smaller frames. Hence they do not test the best lens to their extreme.
When the sensor is the limiting factor and both lens easily outdo the sensor, both lens will appear to be equal.
Jon Clayton
Forum Enthusiast
I can't justify the expense of the 70-200mm f2.8.
I have a 75-300 USM III and I'm about to go on safari so need a better low-light lens.
The prime lens is therefore the most tempting. Any comments?
I have a 75-300 USM III and I'm about to go on safari so need a better low-light lens.
The prime lens is therefore the most tempting. Any comments?
victor
irm wrote:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.