Canon 200mm 2.8 vs 70-200mm 2.8 IS

[Paco 316]

I recently rented an Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm 2.0 which is equivalent to a 70-200mm 2.0 on a FF. This lens is a monster and what really dissapoint me was it's HUGE lens hood.

My point is, I used this glass at the long end at 100mm and at widest aperture which is f2.0 100% of the time, so if I were to have a prime lens at 200mm I don't think I would need the zoom, ever.

The canon 200mm f2.8 is about $1,200 cheaper and close to 2 pounds lighter than the ultra popular 70-200mm 2.8 IS and they both have a red ring around the front element and an 'L'

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? The only downside I see, is the lack of IS.

Crossing my fingers, I want to hear great things about the prime along with it's inconveniences.
--



http://www.pueblostudio.com

 

[Dom Avery]

Oops! wrong forum..

 

[jonathangaillard]

I use the 200mm as one of my only 3 lenses I shoot daily with (all primes, 28, 50, 200) and the image quality (check the tests if you want) of the prime is better, as usually is. In my opinion the CA and vignetting correction in canons software is almost lossless (unless vignetting is HUGE), but the distortion correction obviously introduces a lot of blur. So the lens has it where it counts, tack sharp, low distortion. Of course like you mentioned, can't beat the price/weight/length. Grab it !

Tschuss !

 

[jonathangaillard]

Well he did ask about a canon lens...

 

[Silat Shooter]

I shot it against the 70-200 2.8 IS awhile back and came away surpised that it was noticably sharper than the 70-200. Everyone kept telling me "no way" but shot them exactly in the same manner and the straight 200 won.

I wish it had IS that would definitely make it a staple for me and I'm sure alot of other people here.

 

[Gary S]

Terrific lens if a 200mm prime is a good choice for you. It's not for everyone. I've had one for years. I like the size & weight. And the image quality is very nice.

 

[Lee Jay]

I recently rented an Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm 2.0 which is equivalent to a 70-200mm 2.0 on a FF.

Actually, it's equivalent to a 70-200/4 on full-frame. Full-frame is inherently 2 stops faster than 4/3 in both shallow DOF and total light captured (which gives it 2 stops better high ISO performance).

Nothing wrong with any of the 70-200s or the 200/2.8L. Two other options include the 135/2L + 1.4x teleconverter, or the super-expensive 200/2L IS.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Paco 316]

Thank you so much everyone for your excellent responses. I think a test drive is in order.

Lee, I wonder when I are you going to stop living with that lie. Time after time we have told you, f2 is f2 on any lens. Light is light, no matter where is coming from, that's why they invented the lightmeter.
--



http://www.pueblostudio.com

 

[Lee Jay]

Thank you so much everyone for your excellent responses. I think a test drive is in order.

Lee, I wonder when I are you going to stop living with that lie. Time after time we have told you, f2 is f2 on any lens. Light is light, no matter where is coming from, that's why they invented the lightmeter.

Funny. Guess you didn't read what I wrote. Or maybe you just don't understand it. Or, perhaps you don't understand the difference between total light and exposure.

Or, maybe you think f2.8 on a compact gives the same DOF and noise performance as f2.8 on full-frame?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Fluorite]

The 200/2.8 has excellent optical quality, and is easily better than the 70-200 at 200/2.8.

My 70-200 has severe ghosting when used wide open, and isn't as sharp as my new EF-S 15-85
--
fluorite

 

[Paco 316]

Funny. Guess you didn't read what I wrote. Or maybe you just don't understand it. Or, perhaps you don't understand the difference between total light and exposure.

Or, maybe you think f2.8 on a compact gives the same DOF and noise performance as f2.8 on full-frame?

Funny indeed, you seem to not gather information quite right, or maybe, you've never handle a lightmeter in your life.

Either way, you are absolutely wrong. But I am not here to discuss this with you, I am here for information which these folks were very kind to give.

--



http://www.pueblostudio.com

 

[Tero K]

Olympus @100mm f/2
Subject distance: 4 m
Depth of field: 0.09 m
Circle of confusion: 0.015 mm

5D2 @200mm f/2
Subject distance: 4 m
Depth of field: 0.09 m
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

Full frame advantage in low light is based on the (usually) better high ISO performance.

I recently rented an Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm 2.0 which is equivalent to a 70-200mm 2.0 on a FF.

Actually, it's equivalent to a 70-200/4 on full-frame. Full-frame is inherently 2 stops faster than 4/3 in both shallow DOF and total light captured (which gives it 2 stops better high ISO performance).

Nothing wrong with any of the 70-200s or the 200/2.8L. Two other options include the 135/2L + 1.4x teleconverter, or the super-expensive 200/2L IS.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Paco 316]

Tero, you are absolutely correct.
--



http://www.pueblostudio.com

 

[Tero K]

Sorry man, not really. Had a typo on the aperture :-I

Olympus @100mm f/2
Subject distance: 4 m
Depth of field: 0.09 m
Circle of confusion: 0.015 mm

5D2 @200mm f/4
Subject distance: 4 m
Depth of field: 0.09 m
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

5D2 @200mm f/2
Subject distance: 4 m
Depth of field: 0.05 m
Circle of confusion: 0.03 mm

Full frame advantage in low light is based on the (usually) better high ISO performance. (Although might be vice versa with old FF's and new crops.)

Tero, you are absolutely correct.
--



http://www.pueblostudio.com

 

[tko]

Hint. It's not absolute light gathering capability. It's relative light gathering capability for a given system: i.e. sensor size.

Think about it. Twice the sensor size needs twice the focal length needs twice the front diameter. Now, what does front diameter measure? Hint, absolute light gathering ability, that's why they spec telescope by the size of the front objective. The bigger the front element, the more light it gathers. Do you want a big telescope or a little one?

Honestly, once you throw away the old school learning, which was designed to simplify things for a fixed sensor size, everything becomes crystal clear. Isn't it kind of intuitively obviously that a huge lens gathers more light than a smaller one? That's why they make telescopes so big

You could make a 200MM F2.0 lens the size of a grain of sand IF you could make the sensor small enough. No, it wouldn't gather as much light as a 20 lb lens for a view camera. The F-stop is completely misleading when comparing different sensor sizes, whether it comes to DOF or light gathering.

Just to quell any lingering doubts, the reason a tiny F2.0 and a large F2.0 lens meter the same is because the light density on the sensor IS the same. Double the sensor size, double the lens size, everything scale, light per area is the same. But the total light is different because you have more total area in the second case. All F2.0 lenses do meter the same.

 

[Asposium]

i have both the 200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS

i bought the 200 because i wanted a small, lightweight, fast 200mm lens

in comparison to the 70-200 the 200 is...

smaller
lighter
cheaper
seems sharper
better contrast
seems quicker to focus ( 1D3 )
balances well when hand held

however,
it is a fixed focal length

doesn't come "as standard" with a tripod collar, though china copies can be bought on eb@y for ~ £15
is not weather sealed
uses a 72mm filter, most canon L lenses use a 77mm filter

the 200 f/2.8 is fantastic and an over looked lens

 

[StuartBell]

The prime is also black, which means that you draw less attention to yourself when using it.

It's a great lens. Arguably, the latest 70-200/4IS runs it close for sharpness from f/4 onwards, but every test shows it beats the f/2.8 zooms. Not surprisingly, since a fixed focal length lens is far easier to design, and there are no need for compromises to get performance across a zoom range.

Stuart
--
- -

 

[brightcolours]

I recently rented an Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm 2.0 which is equivalent to a 70-200mm 2.0 on a FF. This lens is a monster and what really dissapoint me was it's HUGE lens hood.

No, the zuiko 35-100 f2 is equivalent to a 70-200 f4 on full frame.
The depth of field on 2x crop 4/3rds is bigger.
So in all aspects, the 35-100 f2 is equivalent to a 70-200 f4 on full frame.

My point is, I used this glass at the long end at 100mm and at widest aperture which is f2.0 100% of the time, so if I were to have a prime lens at 200mm I don't think I would need the zoom, ever.

The canon 200mm f2.8 is about $1,200 cheaper and close to 2 pounds lighter than the ultra popular 70-200mm 2.8 IS and they both have a red ring around the front element and an 'L'

It is an amazing lens with amazing contrast that the zuiko 35-100 f2 can not match.

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? The only downside I see, is the lack of IS.

The upside is that the zuiko is an f4 lens (compared to full frame). remember that you have a much bigger headroom high-ISO wise with Canon full frame. In case you think the f2 on the zuiko actually would give you any advantage (it does not).

So... zuiko -> f4, Canon 200 f2.8. That is one full f-stop advantage, both in shallow depth of field possibility and in letting more light in. So it basically can act as a 1-stop IS too.

Crossing my fingers, I want to hear great things about the prime along with it's inconveniences.

It is just a great prime, I can not think of downsides.

 

[Lee Jay]

Either way, you are absolutely wrong. But I am not here to discuss this with you, I am here for information which these folks were very kind to give.

I'm right, and I can prove it both mathematically and through experiment. If you don't believe that then you are opposing both theory and physical evidence.

200mm/2 = 100mm
100mm/2 = 50mm

Do you believe 100mm and 50mm are the same aperture?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[brightcolours]

I guess you don't. They are not about how well a camera performs noise wise.

A Canon full frame camera performs a LOT better at high ISO than any 4/3rds 2x crop sensor camera.

What does this have to do with this discussion?

100mm f2... f2 only means 2 things.

• That the lens has the ability to let an f2 amount of light in, when light is low. With 2x crop the light is much sooner so low that f2 is the only saving grace, because its high ISO performance is not great due to the small sensor.
• It means something in relation to possible depth of field. 100mm f2 on 2x crop has a similar depth of field to 200mm f4 on full frame.

The only possible conclusion can be:

100mm f2 on 2x crop is equivalent to 200mm f4 on full frame.

Just understand ISO what what it is. Do not think ISO 800 on 2 crop is equivalent to ISO 800 on full frame.

Hint. It's not absolute light gathering capability. It's relative light gathering capability for a given system: i.e. sensor size.

Think about it. Twice the sensor size needs twice the focal length needs twice the front diameter. Now, what does front diameter measure? Hint, absolute light gathering ability, that's why they spec telescope by the size of the front objective. The bigger the front element, the more light it gathers. Do you want a big telescope or a little one?

Honestly, once you throw away the old school learning, which was designed to simplify things for a fixed sensor size, everything becomes crystal clear. Isn't it kind of intuitively obviously that a huge lens gathers more light than a smaller one? That's why they make telescopes so big

You could make a 200MM F2.0 lens the size of a grain of sand IF you could make the sensor small enough. No, it wouldn't gather as much light as a 20 lb lens for a view camera. The F-stop is completely misleading when comparing different sensor sizes, whether it comes to DOF or light gathering.

Just to quell any lingering doubts, the reason a tiny F2.0 and a large F2.0 lens meter the same is because the light density on the sensor IS the same. Double the sensor size, double the lens size, everything scale, light per area is the same. But the total light is different because you have more total area in the second case. All F2.0 lenses do meter the same.