Canon 70-200 holy grail, or... a small, light, cheap 200 prime?!

[Slod]

Hello!

I have been thinking about the various Canon 70-200 lenses for my 40D. Now I think I have seen 'the light': why not move with the prime 200 2.8L USM II?
Pros:

• very good IQ
• light
• black / less dominant presence
• smaller
• fast

Cons:

• no zoom less flexibility
• no IS

Is there any of you who has experience with both or also has been doubting between these? I want to use the lens for street candids, portaits, animals and landscape stuff. I think in reality I would use a 70-200 lens at the long end most of the time (I cannot tell from experience though...)
Anyone can tell how this 200mm prime lens works with the 40D?

Thanks for your advice and opinion!

Kind regards,
Han

PS: I also posted this question in the 40D forum as I don't know where it fits best

 

[netgarden]

I saw for the first time, a guy using the 200L plus teleconverter.
Thought it was a great idea to utilize a length that generally is not used much.

I doubt very much I'd use 200mm very often and I have had both the 70-200 2.8IS and the 70-200 f4IS. In my photog world, if I need 200mm, generally I really need 300 or more.

I guess it boils down to what you shoot most, but for the landscape/general use, you would get alot more bang with the zoom.
--



Linda's space~ http://soulswithin.u.yuku.com/

You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/

 

[Tizzio]

Why not a 70-200/4 IS.

 

[Slod]

For portraits you probably like shallow DOF 2.8...

 

[lovethejob]

stunning portrait lens and a fine 200mm/2.8.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ltjiang

 

[kgiordimai]

I have the 200mm prime as well as 70-200 f2.8. Love both, but prime is easier to handhold due to size and weight advantage & extremely sharp. I find the prime is on my camera very very often. Well worth the money.

 

[maiaibing]

Considering people shell out 4.000$ for the 300 2.8 I am amazed that the 200 2.8 does not sell more to the crop camera crowd who can get 320mm 2.8 for less than 1.000$!. It may be the most overlooked lens in the Canon line-up because the 70-200L's are so popular.

It lacks IS. But its small and lightweight and will take 1.4x very well and the pic IQ is very good even wide open.

Enjoy!

Hello!

I have been thinking about the various Canon 70-200 lenses for my
40D. Now I think I have seen 'the light': why not move with the prime
200 2.8L USM II?
Pros:

• very good IQ
• light
• black / less dominant presence
• smaller
• fast

Cons:

• no zoom less flexibility
• no IS

Is there any of you who has experience with both or also has been
doubting between these? I want to use the lens for street candids,
portaits, animals and landscape stuff. I think in reality I would use
a 70-200 lens at the long end most of the time (I cannot tell from
experience though...)
Anyone can tell how this 200mm prime lens works with the 40D?

Thanks for your advice and opinion!

Kind regards,
Han

PS: I also posted this question in the 40D forum as I don't know
where it fits best

 

[sun_tzu1]

I got the 70-200 f/4L IS for my wife, rented the 70-200 f/2.8L to shoot high school football at night, noticed I was shooting almost always at the 200 end, and bought the prime 200L f/2.8.

The 200L prime is an amazing lens and deal if you find yourself shooting on the long end. Beautiful IQ. I also have the 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2L and now that my son's out of sports the 200 sees less use, but I still will keep it.

Personally, I am amazed at how often f/4 isn't fast enough for the situations I'm in, and often even f2.8 isn't fast enough, so I've moved to a prime only set up and love it.

While I don't own a converter, when I look at links where people test the 200 vs a 135+1.4x I am unimpressed and am glad I have both lenses. Glad the 200L f2.8 is cheap enough that you can get the 85/135/200 primes for about the same price as the zoom and get better low light and IQ shots.

 

[Jay Adeff]

I used the 70-200 2.8L for three years to shoot available light sports for three years and was never happy with the sharpness at f/2.8, particularly at 200mm. I eventually replaced it with the 200 2.8L II and the 100 2.0EF. The 200 prime is so much sharper than the zoom, it's not even funny. The zoom doesn't even begin to catch up to the prime until f/5.6. The 100 is sharper at f/2 than the zoom was at f/2.8.

 

[Pandaemas]

If you compare 70-200 F/2.8 with 200/2.8L, then it's pwned by 200mm by far. Fix lenses are generally sharper and better in all aspects. Especially if you compare it with the zoom, at it's longest end..

--
Pictures are memories frozen in time~

 

[Schwany]

I thought about this question for about 2 seconds. Bought the prime. Actually bought two (a 200f2.8 and a 300f4) for near the price of the 70-200 f2.8IS. The 200 f2.8 works fine on the 40D.

The 200 f2.8LII is one Canon lens that is priced right. Can't go wrong with it if you like that focal length. It is light weight, but not all that small with the hood on.

Is there any of you who has experience with both or also has been
doubting between these?

Anyone can tell how this 200mm prime lens works with the 40D?

Thanks for your advice and opinion!

Kind regards,
Han

PS: I also posted this question in the 40D forum as I don't know
where it fits best