200mm 2.8 L Prime or 70-200 IS 2.8?

Hi,
I recently bought a 24-105L IS F4 and I like is very much.
Now I want a little bit long reach for my 5D.
I know 70-200 IS 2.8 is very well appreciated by many users but
1.Looks too heavy
2.Maybe I won't be using 70-200 range than 200.
3.Price.

Can anyone tell me your expereince with 200L 2.8?
Can I use it with 1.4 extender?
Is there a 200mm L 2.8 IS?

Thanks!

Paul

i have the 200 f/2.8L. i find its IQ as good or better than the 135/2L.

however, whenever i'm outdoors, i reach for the 300 f/4L IS. it has a little better IQ in terms of sharpness, contrast, color saturation, and bokeh. the only thing lacking is AF speed.

if you need to take a lot of low-light action shots, get the 200/2.8L. this is the only thing that keeps me from selling it right now.

you can look at some samples under my smugmug account below.

another option is the 70-200/4L IS. if you look at ISO 12233 comparisons on the-digital-picture.com, it appears to be sharper than the 200/2.8L.

--
Bob Alfieri
Chapel Hill, NC
http://alfieri.smugmug.com

I have the old version of the 200 f/2.8 L USM and is usely considered as one of the sharpest Canon EOS lenses. On safari I let my wife use it on her 350D (weight consideration) and I use a 100-400 L USM IS on a 20D. I have to admit that when you don't consider framing there is a huge difference in favor of the 200, both in color and in sharpness. A difference is no suprise, but the size of the difference amazed me (and I use these lenses like 3 to 5 years now so I should be used to them).

In short, the 200 f/2.8 L USM is a real gem, it's razor sharp, light and rather cheap. But not as versatile as a 70-200.

There is no 200 f/2.8 L USM IS.
--
May the vision be with you.

See profile for equipment

The 200 f2.8 L is an outstanding lens. It is much smaller and lighter (and therefore easier to carry around) than the 70-200. I think it is sharper, but I don't pixel peep, so it's a more a feeling than a fact. It does work with the 1.4X TC. It is a great lens.

jack
--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/iWeb/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177

The prime is a bargain, and even though the zooms are high quality, the f/2.8L prime is stunning. The sharpness, contrast, and colors right out of the camera in RAW mode are unbelievable. Better even than the 400mm f/5.6L. I had the 70-200mm f/4L but I'm glad I sold it in favor of the 2.8L prime.

Here are some of my 200mm f/2.8L prime samples. If you think you'll be at the long end of a zoom, just get the prime, you won't regret it!

Paul Juhn said:

Hi,
I recently bought a 24-105L IS F4 and I like is very much.
Now I want a little bit long reach for my 5D.
I know 70-200 IS 2.8 is very well appreciated by many users but
1.Looks too heavy
2.Maybe I won't be using 70-200 range than 200.
3.Price.

Can anyone tell me your expereince with 200L 2.8?
Can I use it with 1.4 extender?
Is there a 200mm L 2.8 IS?

Thanks!

Paul

Click to expand...

--
Wildlife galleries
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/

The question of 200 f2.8 prime or 70-200 f2.8 IS zoom is really a question of use.

I have both. I first had the 200 f2.8 prime. It is a great lens. Unreal picture quality, especially for the price, and still the lens against which I judge all others as far as picture quality. It also takes a 1.4 extender with very little effect on picture quality. Its only downside is it is not a zoom, and if you are in a situation in which you can't use foot-zoom to get the right framing you have a problem.

After a couple of years I got the 70-200 f2.8 zoom since I was finding myself in situations in which foot-zoom was not an option. I was worried that I would be giving up too much image quality for the zoom, but I frankly can't see a real difference overall. With all my pixel-peeping I think the prime is a tad sharper (but I can't be sure) and the zoom has better contrast and color (but again, I can't be sure). There is something different between the two, but it is more along the lines of each is stronger than the other in some aspect. I like each equally. One difference though, is the zoom does not take the 1.4 extender as well. If I'm going to use the extender I use it on the prime.

One other thing to note is that if you use the extender on the prime you need very high shutter speed or a tripod. It doesn't have IS and I find a real difference with or without a tripod when pixel-peeping even with shutter speeds of 1/500.

200 f2.8 is sharp and has great L color. It's also a delight to use since it's so light and is black.

When I look at 100% crops, my 200 f2.8 always beats the 70-200's (all versions.)

But for real life shooting, I think a good copy of 70-200 will be fine.

I'd get both.

Eric.

--The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a image grabbing machine; it really is that good.

The appearance will get you more shots then it will lose. The IS system in tis lense works really well. My favorite zoom.

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-

I got lucky, I purchased the 70-200L-IS and with the 1.4xII it was soft so I returned it for the 200L which it sharp as a tack w/wo the 2xII. I recently purchased the 70-200L-F4 which is also extremely sharp, so, now I have both lenses and both extenders and better IQ for the same price as the 2.8 L-IS. Shot with 10D - 200L+2xII - f5.6 through 1/2 glass with a tripod.



--
Supermodels don't pose in the rain.

You are going to get a mixed opinion - try giving some information where you see yourself using the lens.

ie.
My choices are based on:

I like to travel around a lot and rarely go to controlled events (where I might setup a tripod etc) though I will be using the 70-200 + tc for motorsports.

I also enjoy taking wildlife & birds, where zoom range is important but not with a tripod so for this I'll take the 100-400IS.

The 70-200 F4 IS is very light - you can use it as a walkabout lens and use one handed all day. It's very sharp even at F4 throughout the zoom range, USM is fast and 4 stop IS covers you for low light shots. The colour and contrast is amazing.

Of course the catch is there are times when F2.8 can be very useful whether because you need a fast shutter speed or shallower bokeh (though I get round that with extension tubes & tc's).
I am considering covering this shortfall with a 135 F2.

I have to say though that I find using the 100-400IS a real joy - mine is sharp stopped down 1/3rd stop or sharp wide open when using a 1.4tc (weird eh). The bokeh at 400mm F5.6 / 560 F8 is dreamy soft

I purchased these lenses at the same time but if I could only have one of them I would go with the 100-400IS. It maybe clunky, only have 2 stop IS but it does get great results. It may not be quite a sharp either but it's very minor and when you go to print the fine differences evaporate.

I can see why this lens is so popular.
--
Sure I've got a photographic memory...... just needs developing!

It is 200 F2.8 prime.
I may buy 70-200mm later on when MKII comes out.
The price is so tempting.

Thanks You!!!

Hi!

Good choice! You will not be disappointed. I have found my 200mm 2.8l to be of great benefit. It has proved it's worth in low light sporting and nature shots/zoo shots. It works fine with a 1.4 extender.......I have the Tamron. A zoom would be nice sometimes.......but for my use hasn't been a big issue.

Cheers, Wendy
--
http://www.pbase.com/wendy2au