70-200 f/4L or 200 f/2.8L?

I did a search and could not find a satisfactory answer that fit my needs. I am

trying to decide between these two lenses. The longest focal length I can reach

with my current lenses is 105mm.

 

I have a 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 but I really don't like it because it is extremely

cheap and optically poor, so I am not counting it for this discussion, plus it

is old and was given to me.

 

So I want a telephoto because I feel I need a telephoto. I find myself wanting

to go a good ways beyond 105mm. I will be using the lens on my new 30D AND my

Canon film bodies. I will be doing mostly 8x10 or larger prints, in fact, that

is all I do. Only rarely do I print something smaller than 8x10, maybe for

'proofs' purposes.

 

So, I want tack sharp clarity. Not just sharp at the center or sharp here or

there, I want it to be the best optically for my large prints. However, I do

not need anything over 200mm. The difference in price of these two lenses is

negligible. The 2.8 aperture seems advantageous to me as I shoot in moderate to

low light most of the time. Reports of quite a few 70-200s with back focus

problems disturbs me. Also, I read a report that showed the prime 200

outperformed the 70-200 in all the test criteria.

 

Many have said that with the 70-200 they rarely use the shorter end of the focal

range and effectively find themselves at the 200 end. It seems to me that would

be the case for me too. So I have just about made a case for myself on getting

the 200 f/2.8L. Am I justified in thinking this way?

I owned a 70-200/4L. About one year ago I sold it to finance the purchase of a 200/2.8. I don't regret my decicion. The 200/2.8 is very sharp wide open, and for my uses the f/2.8 v. f/4 often means the difference between action stopping shutter speeds and a blurred moving object. The 200/2.8 is also a bit shorter than the zoom, so it fits in my favorite small camera bag.

 

The 70-200 is a very sharp zoom, but like you suggest, I found myself at the long end of the zoom most of the time, so the move to the 200 was justified. I have an 85/1.8 to cover the short end. If you don't mind the "inconvenience" of the 200 prime, you'll likely love the images that you can create with it.

 

 

--tom

<P>I have both and it's hard to go wrong with either one. However ultimate image quality

goes to the prime as it's tack sharp from edge to edge. The Zoom is very sharp but gets

softer towards 200 and around the edges of the frame at F4. If flexiblity is not important,

the prime is your best choice. However, I'm speaking as a FF shooter. The diff is less

apparent with 40% of the image cropped out. Also, zooms are far more complicated than

primes and thus more likely to have alignment and mechanical problems down the road.

And, yes, I'm only had said problems with zooms, never with primes.</P>

 

<P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef200usm.htm"

TARGET="_blank">My 200 2.8L review </A></P>

 

<P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef70-200usm.htm"

TARGET="_blank">My 70-200 4L review </A></P>

I chose the 70-200mm 4.0 for the versatility. No regrets so far.<div></div>

is it me or are those reviews in puppyfaces post fairly hokey. the guy uses the exact same pictures and section blowups to prove that the 70-200 f4 is unsharp on the left and to prove that the 200 2.8 is sharper than the 70-200 4. if hes comparing a good lens to a known defective lens then who's surprised that one is better than the other. many online "reviews" of lenses are suspicious to downright bogus. photozone.de is almost laughable. photodo seems credible however. i own and really like the 70-200 f4, any fault in the pictures is certainly mine not the lens. the biggest reason i would like the 2.8 is viewfinder brightness.

how about a 200 2.8 and a 1.4x converter for you 105mm.

You might consider the 135/2L and a Canon Extender 1.4x. The 135/2 is generally agreed to be among the finest medium-telephoto lenses available for the 35mm format, and my own experience with it is consistent with that view. Tack-sharp clarity across the frame is certainly what you will get from it - even at f/2 the performance is stunning. There is very little loss of quality with the Extender, and the 135/2+1.4x combination is pretty much equivalent to the 200/2.8. If you wanted to go beyond 200mm, the 200/2.8+1.4x would certainly be better than the 135/2+2x, but if your main interest is limited to 200mm, the combination I am suggesting gives you some flexibility and outstanding performance.

<P><EM>You might consider the 135/2L and a Canon Extender 1.4x.</EM></P>

<P>135/2L is almost one third more expensive than 200/2.8L and you still need to add teleconverter. This doesn't sound like a cheap advice.</P>

<P>I don't have experience with the zoom, but I have 200/2.8L and I can only recommend it. It's sharp wide open and that's what counts for me. Also, you shall not forget, that with f/2.8 lens 30D will engage high precision mode of its central AF sensor, something that f/4 zoom won't be capable of.</P>

The 200/2.8L is a great lens and very sharp. I went for this rather than the zooms myself. The prime is also much smaller and lighter than the f2.8 zoom and is about the same weight as the f4 zoom but a bit shorter. It does not have IS but is very handholdable and in any event I routinly use a monopod.

 

Another part of my logic is I also have the EF 100mm f2.8 Macro for the shorter end.

 

You need to consider how you work and what you shoot - is a zoom indespensable for you or not.

Hi J.D.

 

Have the 70-200f4L and love it. Did not like the reviews of the EF 75-300IS back then (2 years ago).

 

These days I might go for that new 70-300IS instead though : optically very good and on top of that it has IS and 100mm extra reach!

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

<P><I>is it me or are those reviews in puppyfaces post fairly hokey. the guy uses the

exact same pictures and section blowups to prove that the 70-200 f4 is unsharp on the

left and to prove that the 200 2.8 is sharper than the 70-200 4.</I></P>

 

<P> Hi Mikey. I realize many folks have difficulty concentrating beyond a few paragraphs

and,

when they do read futher, often don't understand what they read. Nevertheless, those

reviews are a honest reflection of my experience with those lenses, nothing more or less.

Your experience may vary. I'm not a pro reviewer and only write about gear I buy and use. I

don't buy mutilple copies nor do I receive loaners. </P>

 

<P> The 70-200 was repaired by Canon last month, free of charge although 4 years out

of

warranty. Yes, the tech actually read my review and has seen that particular problem

before. I updated the review last week to include the repair experience and noted the

improved

sharpness. I wrote that it was a darn good zoom despite obvious problems with Canon's

QC and wrote that most folks don't have problems. However, sh!t happens and it' only fair

to bring to light the good, bad and ugly. I've been in contact with dozens of people with

the left side blurry issue, two during the last week. </P>

 

<P> Sure I could delete the photos with the blurry left side and pretend nothing

happened. Pop

Photo sometimes goes though a few lenses before they get a good one for their reviews.

However,other than you perhaps, most folks appreciate a honest report on real world

experiences. <P>

 

<P> I will update the 200 2.8L review when I get around to it, but I plan to leave the

70-200 as

is. People deserve to know the truth however unpopular it may be. </P>

I was in the same situation last year where I wanted a longer reach than my 28-135. Was thinking to get the f4 for flexibility. But after playing around with one at the shop I decided to take the 200 prime instead, due to its length and its widest opening. So, knowing that most lenses' sweet spots are stop-down from wide open, I thought if I take the 200 prime, stopping down I will still end up with f4 still. I bought the prime and so happy to find out that it is very sharp even wide open! I can't vouch for the zoom as I didn't test it out. Some folks like the zoom as I read in lots of forum. Me, I am happy with my decision. My 2c.

This issue has been made way too complicated. This is real simple and basic....if you can swing it financially, get the 70-200L F2.8. If you cannot then get the F4, but better to get the 200mm F2.8 prime.

 

Better to get the faster lens..and fast aperture will always trump focal range zoom IMHO.

 

The 70-200L F4, F2.8 version, and 200mm prime all are most excellent lenses and their differences in regard to image quality are too small to get bogged down in the minusia.

I used to own the EF 200mm f/2.8 L, now the 70-200mm f/4 L. Both are superb, no real differences in the results I get with my Coolscan V. For me, I needed the flexibility of the zoom and don't miss the extra stop, as much of my work is done with ISO 200 or 400 films for outside shooting.

 

For indoor stage stuff, I loved the 200mm along with CZ800 film, wonderful results, but I only did that type of shooting once or twice a year - I sacrificed this activity for the great outdoors of photojournalsim-style event photography.

I would highly recommend the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG. Super sharp!

 

~Ryan

 

Look at the Easter Play images. 85% were taken with this lens. The other 15% were taken with Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX DC. I am not as thrilled about the 30mm.

 

www.photo.net/photos/Ryan McGill - Huntsville, AL -

I have the 200/2.8, mk 2 and I really like it. I brought it with me on a trip to Italy last year and used it more often than I thought I would. I guess it's the way I like to shoot - however, I did at times felt like a shorter lens would have been useful, somthing in the 70-100 range.

 

I do not have the 70-200/4, so I can't make a direct comparison. I do believe the two are at about the same price. At first, I thought I wanted the 70-200/4, but I figured that I can get the 200 now and save for the 70-200/2.8 IS later. I'm getting close! I've been using the 200 so much now that I am even rethinking the 70-200...

 

Like other posters said, try not to focus (hah!) on all the small differences; think about what lengths you like to shoot in and purchase appropriately.

 

I will say that the 200 AFs quite fast (it surprised me how fast) and with good handholding technique, you can get very sharp enlargements - tripod of course helps. I forget if the type of camera body aids in AF speed; I am sure someone on this board can remind me.

Thanks, you have all been helpful.

 

I think I have decided the wider opening and inherently smoother background blur of the 200 2.8 are more important to me than the flexibility of the zoom. So now I have to pay off my 30D so I can get my lens ;-)

 

Interestingly enough this will be my third prime lens purchase in a row, my zooms are now outnumbered.

Thanks, you have all been helpful.

 

I think I have decided the wider opening and inherently smoother background blur of the 200 2.8 are more important to me than the flexibility of the zoom. So now I have to pay off my 30D so I can get my lens ;-)

 

Interestingly enough this will be my third prime lens purchase in a row, my zooms are now outnumbered.