200mm 2.8L II versus the 70-200mm 2.8L IS

[oasist]

<p>I am wondering, since I never use the zoom on the 70-200mm 2.8L IS lens and I always shoot at 200mm when shooting Motor sports, would the 200mm 2.8L MkII lens produce equal/better/sharper photo's? <br /> I realize the 200mm prime lens doesn't have IS, but, I am not sure that I need IS since I never shoot in low light and Motor sports is very predictable so its easy to track the cars. I was thinking about buying the 200mm prime lens for use instead of the 70-200mm since it would be a good bit lighter. I also see the MkII 70-200mm 2.8L IS is coming out and is said to have better optics, but, again, I won't be using it at anything other than 200mm. I could always get a 200mm 2L lens, but, can't swallow the $5K price tag for another lens at the moment.<br /> Any thoughts on whether the 200mm prime is better for motor sports than the 70-200mm at 200mm?</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Roll your mouse over the image to see it switch between the two...</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=0</p>

<p>The 200/2.8 L is a little sharper, though the difference is not huge. It's a lot cheaper though, so selling the 70-200/2.8 IS and buying the 200/2.8 will leave you with a slightly sharper lens and money in your pocket. Also it weighs half what the zoom weighs.</p>

[oasist]

Oh wow, thanks for the link. After looking at it, it seems obvious that a prime lens is going to be better for me. After seeing how much sharper the prime lenses are, its got me thinking further. I tried a 300mm 4L IS a few years back on my 20D and I had issues getting sharp images. I am thinking now it must have been an issue with either the lens or the 20D after looking at the comparison. I might actually try a 300mm 4L IS now since I could use the extra reach. Its a bit less too which is nice. ;-)

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>I have both lenses and while I use the 70-200 mostly (indoor sports) and I use it mostly in the 70-100 range. However the 200mm is slightly sharper and definitely lighter. It's hard to choose, but if you rarely use the zoom below 200, get the 200mm, you will enjoy it.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

[markonestudios]

As a general rule of thumb, a prime will generally outperform a zoom that has or includes the same focal length. The prime, after all, need only be good at one particular FL; the zoom has to make some compromises along its FL range.

[mbkissel]

<p>Stopping down the 70-200 just one stop evens the IQ playing field quite a bit. How often are you shooting motorsports wide open, at f/2.8? Plus you're also giving up IS, which may not make a big difference for your subject matter, but do you use it for other purposes? </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I have the f4 IS version of the 70-200mm and the 200mm 2.8. The prime is a slightly sharper lens. Its lighter, less expensive, a bit sharper and one more thing I love about it, it's black!</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>If you had problems with the 300/4L IS USM, it wasn't a problem with the design of the lens. It may have been a bad sample (or possibly user error). I used that lens on both a film body and a 20D and I'm among many who can attest to it being a <em>very</em> sharp lens.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>That "test" chart photo(above)is virtually meaningless. It fails to provide a real world situation of a lens' true worth- such as background blur, color and contras.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>That "test" chart photo(above)is virtually meaningless. It fails to provide a real world situation of a lens' true worth- such as background blur, color and contras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, a huge part of <em>"true worth"</em> resides in resolution and contrast (related beasts, both showing very well on a <em>"test" chart photo.) </em>And there are countless samples from virtually any lens in existence available on the 'net. The above-referenced site is very accurate and detail-oriented - well worth perusing while comparing different lenses.</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>I am an avid motorsports shooter, I've had lots of pics published in magazines and websites. I've also been down this road with both the prime and zoom 2.8 lenses and the F/4 non IS version. In the end I decided to keep the 70-200 F/4 version for several reasons. The IQ is exactly the same for both zooms, the F/4 version is light and nimble and gives up nothing in AF speed to any other lens, and the biggest reason is I never use 2.8 for any motorsports shooting, its just not neccessary, so why lug around that big lump of glass. Most of the settings for daytime shooting are F/5.6 to F/8 with shutter speeds from 1/500 to 1/800, ISO 100 or 200. I also have a 400 F/5.6 to compliment and its all you need for any shot at the track that you'll encounter. As far as the extra sharpness that the 200 prime will give you, if your subject is static I agree that the prime may be a tad sharper, but for the fast moving cars and the blur that may not be avoidable in motorsports, you won't gain any advantage.....if anything, the slight blur of background, tires, and wheels is a neccessary element of this type of photo so for me, the versatility of the zoom wins out.</p><div></div>

[richard_martin10]

<p>Another link to some more motorsports photos:<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2540&id=100000637275960&l=6f199c05ac">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2540&id=100000637275960&l=6f199c05ac</a><br>

And one more:<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2539&id=100000637275960&l=510d669eb4">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2539&id=100000637275960&l=510d669eb4</a><br>

Most taken with the 70-200 F/4, a few with the 400 F/5.6</p>

[pavel_kupcik]

<p>I've had 70-200 2.8 IS for about 6 months and also have 200 f/2.8 II prime. 70-200 is great if you need to zoom. It is heavy though and really stands out - which can be good or bad. I wasn't impressed with its sharpness at close focus distance, but at medium to longer distance the lens was great especially between 70-135mm. At 200mm it was somewhat soft at 2.8, but only if you pixel peep. The 200 prime is light, small, black and sharp at 2.8. I can walk around with it all day long. It is also a lot cheaper, especially if you buy it used since there's not much demand for this lens and the used prices reflect that. Financial cost aside, I would decide strictly based on the focal length(s) you need. If you know you will be mostly at 200mm, the Prime makes much more sens.</p>