Reading mode: Light Dark

200 2.8L vs. 70-200 2.8L IS @ 200mm - Need quick advice please

Go to last post
S

SayersWeb

Senior Member
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1
Location
Northville, MI, US
Anyone have experience with both lenses? I already have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS. I'm interested in a comparison of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS @ 200mm with the 200mm f/2.8 prime. Things that are important to me are optical quality (sharpness wide open, color, contrast), auto-focus speed, especially in low light, and anything else you can think of.

I am starting to shoot lower light events like ballet, martial arts exhibitions, hockey, etc. So far the 70-200mm f/2.8 has done pretty well, but I'm definitely buying a 135mm f/2 and already have the 85mm 1.8 & 50mm f/1.4. So, now I'm wondering if it would be best to also get the 200mm f/2 and consider selling the 70-200mm f/2.8. If all of this happens and works out ok then eventually I may get the 70-200mm f/4 IS to use when I don't need the wide aperture for low light.

I hope to place the order today.... so any quick advice would be greatly appreciated.

--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
I'm in the same boat as you.

I bought the 135 f/2L for indoor sports, but then coming to realize that 135mm might be a tad short for certain indoor sports, I was thinking of mounting my 1.4x TC (189mm at f/2.8, pretty much the same as the 200 f/2.8L). I've heard that sharpness will decrease some and that AF speed slows down at higher ISO's, which is what is used for indoor sports. So I went ahead and bought the 200mm f/2.8L. It is a sharper lens than the 70-200 f/2.8L (IS or non-IS versions) and is suppose to be sharper than the 135 f/2L with the 1.4x TC. Look at the MTF Resolution charts on Photozone.com to compare the 200 f/2.8L to the 70-200 f/2.8L's. View this link on The-Digital-Picture.com for the 200 f/2.8L vs. the 135 w/ 1.4x TC:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Just move your mouse over the page to see the image switch between lenses. The 200 f/2.8L is sharper in this comparison.

Good luck in your choice.
--
Cheers,

Bryan P.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29386469@N00/
 
I don't have the 135 f2, but I do have the 200 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS L. IMO, the 200 f2.8 is a better lens. It focuses faster and it is sharper.

If you can live with what it doesn't have, Image Stabilization and zoom, then it's an easy choice. Personally, I carry the 100 f2 and 200 f2.8 and the only time I still use the zoom is when I have to shoot sports.

jack
--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/iWeb/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177
 
I have the 200 prime and it's wonderful, but I need the zoom for youth sports when the action moves closer. I am ordering the zoom and do comparisons of both at 200 2.8 and see for myself. I want the prime for situations when I will be at 200 only, such as an Astro's game. It is smaller and draws less attention, just trying to warrant keeping both.

Danny
 
i've owned all 3. the 200L and 135L are about the same w/o TC, and thus the 200L is sharper than the 135L w/ 1.4x. they are both significantly better in sharpness, color, and AF speed than the 70-200/2.8L IS. the-digital-picture.com crops are consistent with this experience.

that said, in the end, i've gone with the 300 4L IS and sold off the others. the 300L has even better sharpness, color, and contrast, and is a more useful focal length on FF for my work and since i got the 85LII to cover portraits. i hope to upgrade to the 300 2.8L IS sometime this year.

hey, that's just one man's experience. good luck.

--
Bob Alfieri
Chapel Hill, NC
http://alfieri.smugmug.com
 
BryanP said:
...I bought the 135 f/2L for indoor sports, but then coming to realize
that 135mm might be a tad short for certain indoor sports, I was
thinking of mounting my 1.4x TC (189mm at f/2.8, pretty much the
same as the 200 f/2.8L). I've heard that sharpness will decrease
some and that AF speed slows down at higher ISO's, which is what is
used for indoor sports...
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have to disagree. But I don't see any technical basis why higher ISO setting would slow down AF speed. Could you elaborate?

BTW, have you decided to try mounting your 1.4x TX with your 135f/2L, or are you still thinking about doing it? It won't harm the lenses if you try.

--
Medic
-----------------------------------------------------
  • The camera is mightier than the pen.
 
I think he means AF slows down in low light, when high ISOs are used.
Medic Laviña said:
BryanP said:
...I bought the 135 f/2L for indoor sports, but then coming to realize
that 135mm might be a tad short for certain indoor sports, I was
thinking of mounting my 1.4x TC (189mm at f/2.8, pretty much the
same as the 200 f/2.8L). I've heard that sharpness will decrease
some and that AF speed slows down at higher ISO's, which is what is
used for indoor sports...
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have to disagree. But I don't see any technical basis why
higher ISO setting would slow down AF speed. Could you elaborate?
BTW, have you decided to try mounting your 1.4x TX with your
135f/2L, or are you still thinking about doing it? It won't harm
the lenses if you try.

--
Medic
-----------------------------------------------------
  • The camera is mightier than the pen.
Click to expand...
 
I really enjoyed reading your various lens write-ups. They seemed to be quite good, and nice to read them from your perspective as to usage. Thanks for your work. PS I too have the 300 F4 and really like it for various uses. After reading your 85 1.2 review, I wish I had it too. I have the 50 1.4, the 17-40, the 70-200 2.8 IS and as mentioned the 300 F4 with a 20D.
 
Are you planning to change lenses repeatedly during the ballet? That's lots of fun in the dark, while not disturbing the people who paid for their tickets or, at rehersals, dancers who need to stop and start while waiting for you.

An 85 f1.8 and a 135 f2 are easier to focus in bad light than the f2.8 zoom.

Using three bodies saves lens changing.

BAK
 
Thank you for the info and link, I've not seen that site before. It looks to be extremely useful.

Yup, makes sense that the 200mm would be sharper and faster to focus than the 135mm + 1.4x.

Thanks again!
BryanP said:
I'm in the same boat as you.

I bought the 135 f/2L for indoor sports, but then coming to realize
that 135mm might be a tad short for certain indoor sports, I was
thinking of mounting my 1.4x TC (189mm at f/2.8, pretty much the
same as the 200 f/2.8L). I've heard that sharpness will decrease
some and that AF speed slows down at higher ISO's, which is what is
used for indoor sports. So I went ahead and bought the 200mm
f/2.8L. It is a sharper lens than the 70-200 f/2.8L (IS or non-IS
versions) and is suppose to be sharper than the 135 f/2L with the
1.4x TC. Look at the MTF Resolution charts on Photozone.com to
compare the 200 f/2.8L to the 70-200 f/2.8L's. View this link on
The-Digital-Picture.com for the 200 f/2.8L vs. the 135 w/ 1.4x TC:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Just move your mouse over the page to see the image switch between
lenses. The 200 f/2.8L is sharper in this comparison.

Good luck in your choice.
--
Cheers,

Bryan P.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29386469@N00/
Click to expand...
--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
Thanks for the info.... I can see where the zoom would be useful for sports. I do have two camera bodies, so that helps a bit.
jackkurtz said:
I don't have the 135 f2, but I do have the 200 2.8 and 70-200 2.8
IS L. IMO, the 200 f2.8 is a better lens. It focuses faster and it
is sharper.

If you can live with what it doesn't have, Image Stabilization and
zoom, then it's an easy choice. Personally, I carry the 100 f2 and
200 f2.8 and the only time I still use the zoom is when I have to
shoot sports.

jack
--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/iWeb/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177
Click to expand...
--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
Thanks Danny. The zoom is defintiely more versatile, but at the copst of extra weight and maybe some image quality. I found the link that Bryan procided above to be very useful.
Dray said:
I have the 200 prime and it's wonderful, but I need the zoom for
youth sports when the action moves closer. I am ordering the zoom
and do comparisons of both at 200 2.8 and see for myself. I want
the prime for situations when I will be at 200 only, such as an
Astro's game. It is smaller and draws less attention, just trying
to warrant keeping both.

Danny
Click to expand...
--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
Thanks for the info! Looks like the 200mm will be a good choice for me.

I do have the 300mm f/4 and love it, although it would be too slow and long for some of the needs I have. I'm using 1.6 crop bodies.

At first I bought primarily zoom lenses, but over time I have slowly been adding primes for specific purposes.
alfieri said:
i've owned all 3. the 200L and 135L are about the same w/o TC, and
thus the 200L is sharper than the 135L w/ 1.4x. they are both
significantly better in sharpness, color, and AF speed than the
70-200/2.8L IS. the-digital-picture.com crops are consistent with
this experience.

that said, in the end, i've gone with the 300 4L IS and sold off
the others. the 300L has even better sharpness, color, and
contrast, and is a more useful focal length on FF for my work and
since i got the 85LII to cover portraits. i hope to upgrade to
the 300 2.8L IS sometime this year.

hey, that's just one man's experience. good luck.

--
Bob Alfieri
Chapel Hill, NC
http://alfieri.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
No.... I have two identical 1.6 crop camera bodies. I will probably start with either the 135mm & 50mm combo or the 200mm & 85mm combo. It depends on the venue and how close I can get without obstructing anyones view.

The last ballet I did (with the 70-200mm) most of my shots were in the 130 - 150mm range from the aisles. I used the 50mm 1.4 for wider shots and when I went back stage.

This time will be at a different venue, so I'm not sure what my working distance will be. I plan to shoot both performances, so there is some wiggle room to experiment with different lens combos each performance.

I agree that three bodies would make it much easier. Thanks for bringing up these considerations.
BAK said:
Are you planning to change lenses repeatedly during the ballet?
That's lots of fun in the dark, while not disturbing the people who
paid for their tickets or, at rehersals, dancers who need to stop
and start while waiting for you.

An 85 f1.8 and a 135 f2 are easier to focus in bad light than the
f2.8 zoom.

Using three bodies saves lens changing.

BAK
Click to expand...
--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
When will you get your new 200? As you already know, I'm extremely happy with mine. I often use it on a second camera for the "shorter" lens. I love the size, weight, sharpness, color and AF speed. It's a great lens for the price.
 
I, too, have the 200/2.8L and 100/2. Both are sharper than the 80-200L in my experience, and the zoom is reputed to be sharper than the 70-200/2.8L.

The 200/2.8L is much easier to hand-hold than are the f/2.8 zooms. I don't regret the zoom -> prime switch. In many situations, you can select your prime and stick with it and using a prime helps you concentrate on grabbing the right moment without worrying about optimal framing.

Stuart
--
- -

 
Hi Gary,

I know, I'm an impetuous buyer. You didn't say or imply this, I am freely admitting this. :o)

I ordered it from B&H Photo over the weekend on-line, so it should ship out today. Should get it on Thursday, just in time for my photoshoot at Florida Atlantic University's baseball game on Friday against Florida International University. I want to test it out at this game, although daytime outdoor sports is not the main reason why I bought this lens. I bought it mostly for indoor sports and night h.s. football games to compliment my 135 f/2L.

Thanks Gary. Of course, your awesome photos tipped the balance and inpsired me to get it now rather than wait til the fall. :o)

--
Cheers,

Bryan P.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29386469@N00/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
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.
Back
Top