200/2.8 or 70-200

might have been sharpened

George

Get a 135mm and your set.
--



.
http://www.pbase.com/schmugs50/root

If price is a factor, your Canon choices are the 200 2.8, 70-200 f4 and 70-300 IS. If you really want 2.8 speed, the choice is obvious. Picking between the other 2 options is not easy.

200 prime isn't any faster than the 70-200. they're both 2.8 and i'm sure they auto focus very quickly.

i don't own either lenses, but will be getting the 70-200 IS. i originally wanted to go for the 70-200 non-IS but after playing with it at a local camera store, IS is such a great feature. also, if you're shooting concerts, you can go really low on your shutter speeds with IS because they're not moving fast.

i say go for the 70-200 IS.

I just added the latest PZ test data to my graphs for interesting across-the-board comparison.

Tele Resolution: http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/51256678
Supertele Resolution: http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/52709599

I went with the 70-200/2.8L (non-IS) because I prefer the zoom versatility, it really is nearly L-prime-sharp, and I got it for a special deal at $770 which sealed it for me.

Cheers,
Lincoln

--
ALL PhotoZone.de lens test data compared graphically:
http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/lens_tests

my 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) was my first sports lens. Then I bought the 300 2.8 IS. There's no comparison. I stopped using the zoom because it's so soft at f/2.8 compared to the 300. I still miss the shorter focal lengths, so I'm seriously considering selling the zoom and buying the 200 2.8 prime if it's substantially sharper at 2.8 than the zoom.

--
David

I also have the 300 f2.8 and 200 f2.8 primes. I have never owned the 70-200 f2.8 zoom, but I will say the 200 f2.8 prime meets my expectations of sharpness. It's a great little lens.

I don't have any full sized files online but here's a couple resized ones that were shot at f2.8. Not much processing at all.

No originals or full sized photos online. Just as the previous two, shot at f2.8 on the prime.

17-40
200 2.8
400 5.6

The 200 2.8 blows the snots off the other two.

I have the 70-200IS and for me it has become just to sticky outy and heavy to enjoy. I have the 135f2 which is simply stunning, i fancied the 200 2.8 but went for the 1.4 ext to work with the 135. OK I know it knocks you down to f4 but the size and weight of this combo is great. You might find(like me) that 135 fills most of your needs.
--
'The Devil Made Me Do It'

Dave
http://www.pbase.com/davechilvers

I was considering this same decision recently (except I was looking at the f/4 version of the zoom). I ended up buying the zoom. I eventually realized that comparing a zoom lens of X-Ymm to a prime lens of Ymm isn't a very valid comparison, unless one plans to use the zoom mostly at its longest focal length. If a zoom is going to be used throughout its focal length, a better prime comparison is one in the middle of the focal length range (such as the 135 f/2 L in this case), since it's a compromise in both directions instead of a huge compromise in one direction. It's hard to replace a zoom with a single prime lens, unless you really only need one focal length (then the prime is the obvious choice). I personally find that primes become more difficult to use the longer the focal length. I use 50mm a lot, and I wish there was such a thing as a 17mm prime (I use a 20D), but I think 200mm would be an awkward length for a prime.