Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
I shoot horse racing. There is alot of detail to be captured in this sport. My next shoot isn't until Sat though. As soon as I get a chance i will post on this thread.
 
Dorchester, even looking at the reduced size images. Check the railings outside the pub, the coat hangers to the left, and the flowers in the basket above the pub. I also think the micro-contrast is better with the prime.

None of this is realy suprising though; the prime has 9 elements in 7 groups, where as the 2.8 IS zoom has 23 elements in 18 groups... so there must be a lot more light bouncing around inside the zoom.

--
Stu.
 
Both seem like very nice lenses. After a couple test shots it appears that the 200mm may even be a bit sharper then the 135mm. This weekend I have a professional ballet performance to shoot which will give the lenses a good workout. I'll post a few to this thread if any of them turn out. :)

Thanks again!
--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
It's my experience that my 135 is sharper by a small margin, but I'm not knocking my 200, both are excellent!

Danny
 
...if life wasn't good enough(lol) here is something you need to know.
...both my 135L & 200L work perfectly with both Canon extenders.

...I purchased the tripod ring from big_is on eBay and my 200L+2xII+10D sits on the tripod in the den, waiting for birds. [email protected]





--
Supermodels don't pose in the rain.
 
I shot a ballet this weekend and used these two lenses along with the 85mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4.

The 135 and 200 both performed quite a bit better than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS did last time. The images are sharper and the focus was accurate more often. This may sound silly, but it seems that there may even be less noise from these lenses at ISO 800 than with the zoom (or I could be nuts).

Saturday night I shot from the floor of the theater and used the 135. Today I was fortunate enough to shoot from the projector room of the theater and used the 200. I actually had to move to the back wall of the projection room, otherwise it didn't leave enough room to follow the dancers when they jumped or moved suddenly.

The one thing I really missed from the zoom was the tripod collar. It is much more difficult to switch between portrait and landscape with a ballhead. So, I shot most of the time in portrait.

I hope to have some photos processed in the next few days.... I took many between the two days.

--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
 
SayersWeb said:
I shot a ballet this weekend and used these two lenses along with
the 85mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4.

The 135 and 200 both performed quite a bit better than the 70-200
f/2.8 IS did last time. The images are sharper and the focus was
accurate more often. This may sound silly, but it seems that there
may even be less noise from these lenses at ISO 800 than with the
zoom (or I could be nuts).

Saturday night I shot from the floor of the theater and used the
135. Today I was fortunate enough to shoot from the projector room
of the theater and used the 200. I actually had to move to the back
wall of the projection room, otherwise it didn't leave enough room
to follow the dancers when they jumped or moved suddenly.

The one thing I really missed from the zoom was the tripod collar.
It is much more difficult to switch between portrait and landscape
with a ballhead. So, I shot most of the time in portrait.

I hope to have some photos processed in the next few days.... I
took many between the two days.

--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/
Click to expand...
--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 20D & Fuji F10
 
Took the 200 2.8 for a test run yesterday. Shot at 2.8 just to check out sharpness and accuracy. 3 step sharpening in DPP.



 
You do know that you can put a tripod collar on the 200/2.8L? It's the same as the one for the 80-200L, and a few others.

Stuart
--
- -

 
Thank you! I have the 300 f/4, so I can use that collar. I'm not worried how it looks, just how it works. :)
jackkurtz said:
The collar from the 300 f4 and 70-200 f4 also works. Except those
collars are white and look a little odd on the black lens. Not that
I'm shallow enough to care about that.

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/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
EF 70-200 f/4L IS ii vs EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L for 5D IV?
Replies
13
Views
20K
Tannin
T
T
Canon 1.4 Extender Advice
Replies
9
Views
4K
TempusFugit2012
T
F
70-200 f/2.8 family
Replies
13
Views
9K
Scott Larson
S
W
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II - form factors considerations
Replies
7
Views
82K
Rodenmg
Rodenmg
Bill Ferris
Cropped f/2.8 Image vs Full-size f/5.6 Image
Replies
8
Views
4K
Bill Ferris
Bill Ferris

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