IQ of 200mm/2.8 vs 70-300mm at same f-stop & at 200mm

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=356&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2<br /><br />Hi,<br />I'm not much good at reading charts but would you agree that this one indicates superior image quality of the Canon 200mm/2.8 L II over the Canon 70-300mm/4-5.6 L IS at 200mm focal length and using the same aperture of f5.6 (5.6 selected because the 70-300mm will likely have to be used here as it's widest is 4-5.6 and I suspect it creeps from 4 to 5.6 pretty rapidly).<br /><br />Of course the 70-300 has IS which is a huge advantage to this old guy and the flexibility of the zoom but the prime is faster and seems to have better Image Quality. One or the other will be purchased and used on a 5D mkII<br /><br /><br />thanks,<br />F</p>

<p>You are best to compare both on the 1DsIII selection. Surprisingly the 200/2.8 is only marginally better at the centre and noticeably better at the periphery. Now, add the 1.4x to the 200/2.8 L and the 70-300 at 300mm, again both at effective f5.6, and the zoom is better by about the same amount.</p>

<p>It is not an easy choice. The 200/2.8 can take photos at f2.8 too! I often chose primes over zooms but you may also want to consider a Canon EF 70-200/2.8 (non-IS) and Canon EF 1.4x (I or II) as a reasonably priced and still flexible alternative. This year I ultimately chose the Canon EF 300/4 L (non-IS) for my 5D II and have a manual focus 80-200/2.8 to go along with it.</p>

<p>What are you planning to use it for? It can make a big difference.</p>

<p>Thanks for your response.<br>

I am in favour of the extra reach that the 300mm provides and as I said in my OP I also love the IS.<br>

But....I have only ever used primes for top image quality (35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2) and now I need something longer.<br>

200mm as a focal length will serve most of my image needs;<br>

but like I said the variable zoom. and extra reach, and IS (I'm over 60 :-) would be nice to have.<br>

I do a kind of street shooting (from a distance) and also landscapes- see here www.frankgross.com<br>

and so I need the small compactness of these two for 'walkabouts' vs the bulk of bigger glass.<br>

The 200 prime can be had for close to half of the 70-300mm <br>

pros & cons</p>

<p>If you want a small zoom and don't need F2.8 then the 70-200 F4 LIS is also a very good lens.<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2</p>

 

<p>I'll second Philip's recommendation of the 70-200/4 L IS. I have a 135/2 L and 200/2.8 L II, and almost never use them since the IQ of the zoom is so good.</p>

<p>Thanks for the recommendation.I havent given that lens serious thought. I guess because it's only up to 200mm so there is no further reach than the 200 prime plus it's a good stop slower, another disadvantage.</p>

<p>The 200mm 2.8 is a wonderful lens. Very sharp wide open, reasonably priced. However the 70-200 f4 IS should be given strong consideration if f4 will do. Actually, the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 300 f4 IS would make a top notch combination for the focal range you need.</p>

<p>I had the 200/2.8 L II and the 70-200/4 L IS, but I never reached for the 200/2.8 and eventually sold it. I photograph landscapes; had my interest been in photographing people, I would have kept the 200/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[T]he 70-200 f4 IS should be given strong consideration if f4 will do. Actually, the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 300 f4 IS would make a top notch combination for the focal range you need.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is an excellent option, particularly if you don't envision shooting much between 200mm and 300mm. I have the 300/4 L non-IS and it complements the zoom very nicely (though the IS version would be even better). </p>

<p>As for the one stop deficit in speed, the zoom's IS system more than makes up for it for static or slow moving subjects.</p>

<p>It is extremely hard to design a zoom lens for many focal lengths that will out-perform a single focal length "prime" lens. What is amazing is that nowadays, with great optical science advances, the zoom lenses come as close as they do in rivaling the prime focal designs.</p>

<p>This is a general principle that applies to all lenses, regardless of the manufacturer (except for the lenses made in the back room of some bar somewhere...)</p>

<p>Frank:</p>

<p>I have the 70-300L, and it's wonderful. The focusing is quite fast. Faster then the 50/1.4, and in the same league as the 85/1.8 and 135/2.</p>

<p>I have the same primes as you. You're not going to flip through prints and see any difference with the 70-300L that would tell you the prints were made with an inferior lens.</p>

<p>The exact change of maximum aperture can be seen in the the Digital Pictures review:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>The IS is outstanding. I am able to take sharp photos at 300mm at 1/30th of a second. Of course, usually my subjects are moving, but IS really lowers eye strain when the image isn't jumping all over while you're looking through the viewfinder for extended periods.</p>

<p>If you need f/2.8, obviously this isn't the lens for you. If you want great IQ, autofocus speed, and the flexibility of a zoom, this is a keeper.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>The differences between the bench test lab results are so small as to be inconsequential. The real question is do you want a 200 f2.8 or a 70-300 f4-5.6 with IS, which would serve you better?</p>

<p>Having looked at your website I fear you may always question the IQ of the various zooms. I am not so sure the 200 is going to be significantly enough longer than your brilliant 135/2 so I do wonder if the 300/4 L might be a better answer, but it is likely almost twice the size.</p>

<p>The other lens I have often considered is the Canon 180mm f3.5 L Macro. I know the 200/2.8 L is not in the same league as the 135/2 L but the 180 Macro may be. Of course it is even closer in focal length to the 135, but it also does macro if that becomes of interest to you.</p>

<p>Having used a Nikon 200mm f2 AI on Canon/Nikon DSLRs I know the Canon EF 200mm f2 L IS would be the dream solution, however it is likely well over the top financially for your requirements and is of course huge! The sharpness at f2 to f4 and the soft rendering of out-of-focus areas is incredible. My manual focus 200/2 had CA problems but that would have been eliminated by now.</p>

<p>If you don't need autofocus the other "affordable" solution is a used Zeiss/Contax 180mm f3.4 APO. Highly rated but I have not used one myself to know. Even if it is as sharp as the Canon 200/2 I would be concerned about CA in this older lens (but it is a Zeiss of German design, likely made here in Ontario). I have used the Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4 via a cheap mechanical adapter on Canon DSLRs and results were staggering. Stopped-down metering techniques and no focus confirmation though.</p>

<p>Then of course are the ultra expensive, manual focus, manual metering, and just as huge Leica R 180mm f2 APO, and Zeiss/Contax 200mm f2 APO. I would love to find out what these would do on my 5D II.<br>

</p>

<p>A few more concerns. Resolution does not give the entire picture either. Generally prime lenses are going to have greater contrast, better colour rendition, and better control over flare as well.</p>

<p>All wonderful points and suggestions. Thank you very much.<br>

I need auto everything as my eyes and hands are 'fading'. The manual lenses are not an option.<br>

Budget is an issue so that's another reason the 200/2.8L is still a consideration (the f2 is out of the question) - compared to the 70-300mmL or even the 70-200/4L IS it is almost half the $ whether I buy new or used.<br>

So perhaps that makes the decision for me. However I keep having the nagging feeling that I wont be happy without IS, hand holding, a long 'ish lens.<br>

Using the same body and comparing the lenses at the same aperture would you agree with Scott that the IQ differences (mainly resolution compared here) in the charts are 'inconsequential" ?<br>

I want to be able to make a 16x24 inch print and not be sorry about IQ</p>

 

<p>Frank,</p>

<p> Believe me, if you are hand holding and using AF then nobody, truthfully nobody, could tell you which lens you used.</p>

<p>Frank:</p>

<p>You'll be able to make a 16x24 inch print without worrying about IQ.</p>

<p>Here are some shots everywhere from 70mm to 300mm. This one, and the next 14 shots (click right until you see people):</p>

<p><a href="http://canid.com/arizona/120331_grand_canyon_001.html">http://canid.com/arizona/120331_grand_canyon_001.html</a></p>

<p>With the exception of the white church, all the shots from here to the very last cactus are all with the 70-300L, too:</p>

<p><a href="http://canid.com/arizona/120404_superior_003.html">http://canid.com/arizona/120404_superior_003.html</a></p>

<p>The 70-300L handles flair very nicely, in my opinion. </p>

<p>All that said, I'm not sure you'll like the 70-300L if your hands are fading. It's not a light lens at 2.3 lbs.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Looks really great. thanks. At 100% pixel viewing are the thorns on the cactus' sharp :-) ha ha ha (I'm only half joking :-)</p>

<p>Frank,<br>

I bought my wife the 70-300L and would just echo everything Eric says about the lens. The IS is truly good for handholding shots down in the 1/30 sec range. Image quality is top notch. The 70-300 is reasonably light; she carries it around all day without complaint. The versatility of the zoom, its size, excellent IS and image quality are all factors that keep the lens glued to her camera quite a bit. I still haven't been able to borrow it from her, and that's been 6 months now.</p>

<p>Frank:</p>

<p>Yes. I looked at this one:</p>

<p><a href="http://canid.com/arizona/120404_bush_hwy_001.html">http://canid.com/arizona/120404_bush_hwy_001.html</a></p>

<p>I can see every thorn on the cactus at 100%. (The final image is actually a blend of 4 different exposures.)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Thank you everyone.<br>

I'm not much closer to deciding between the 200/2.8L and the 700-300 IS L but what I have established, with your help, is that it is more a case of budget and of usage - rather than a question of one being superior IQ to the other</p>