john_tobias1 Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 just bought a used 200 2.8 L II lens of ebay, I've been using the 70- 200 f4 and primarily bought this to get a 320mm f2.8 on a D10 body! on the cheap does anyone have thoughts on the image quality of the 200 prime at f4 compared to the zoom at 200? just asking prior to buying the digital body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I've been using the EF 200 2.8L USM since the mid-90s and the EF 70-200 4L USM since 2001. In terms of sharpness, there isn't much difference at F5.6 or higher, especially in the center of the frame, but the prime is slightly better at F4 (& obviously at F2.8!). However, the prime is much less prone to flare when shooting sunsets and performs better with my 1.4x Extender (sharper & more contrasty) than the zoom. If you shoot verticals or ocean horizons, you'll notice the zoom has a slight amount of pincushion distortion whereas the prime has virtually none. I also prefer the bokeh of the prime over the zoom. Finally, the image in my viewfinder is noticeably larger with the prime than the zoom at 200mm. Of course, every lens is a bit difference so your mileage may vary. You'll have to check it out and see. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent_j_m Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I sold my 200/2.8L (mark-I) and replaced it with the 70-200/4L just for the convenience of a zoom. My immediate observation was that the prime was sharper from edge to edge when shooting wide open and definitely sharper than the zoom at f/4. Still, no regrets... the 70-200 is one of my most used lenses today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 The above comments from Mr P Face are 100% correct. Too many people buy an L zoom and think their massive financial outlay will guarantee stunning results at any aperture right out to the corners of the frame. Life's not like that, zooms are terrifically versatile but, 1.They flare more than primes, and flare isn't just a big bright patch on the occasional shot, it's an insidious vieling that will affect maybe 20% or more of your output, sapping contrast and eroding clarity. 2. They're not great wide open, neither are most primes. But primes will hit "full useability" at wider apertures than comparable zooms. And primes will usually hold an advantage when it comes to edge performance. 3. Zooms are not as fast as they're rated. The calculation that awards a lens an f2.8 or an f4.0 isn't based on the amount of light that an individual lens actually passes. It's a theoretical calculation (like the bit depth of a scanner) and in reality a zoom rated at f2.8 will be about half a stop slower than a comparable f2.8 prime, and the more lens elements the zoom has the worse this will be. 4. The quality of the background blur of zooms is generally slightly inferior to primes, again this is worse at the edges. Just take a look at the MTF curves and compare the difference in the radial and tangential lines. If you use a zoom sensibly you'll get superb results, but that means stopping down, being especially disciplined about shading the lens, and favouring the central area for composition. All of which detracts from the care-free versatillity which is why you bought the thing in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_tobias1 Posted January 10, 2004 Author Share Posted January 10, 2004 thanks all, clearly the answer is I will keep them both, prime for lower light/better isolation of subject etc and zoom for convenience. only the relatively low price I paid for the prime allows me to do this. Now....whats all this about a D10 replacement??....ho-hum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Ah heck you just BOUGHT THE LENS. Both lenses are used: Keep them both for a month and try for yourself. <speculation> PMA in mid February. 10D replacement rumours are becoming rampant. 1D replacement rumours have been rampant for months. . .and major distributors are taking the 1D off their web sites. </speculation> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_kay Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I did not see too much difference in image quality. I did a bunch of tests for comparison. I sold the prime. you loose the f2.8 but i have both the 70-200/4 and 70-200L IS which will cover that aperture. THe only thing missing is the relative small size and weigth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_v. Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Question for Mark... I have the f4 70-200mm and find it extremely sharp. I am curious as to which of the zooms you find you use more. Most people seem to have a difficult decision between the two for various reasons, mostly because of price.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 My 200/2.8 is better at f/2.8 than my 70-200/4 was at f/4. In addition, I have one more stop and shallower DoF. Yes, the overall cost of 85/1.8 + 200/2.8 is much more than the 70-200/4 but I'm happy I made the switch. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now