YES! the difference is dang RIDICULOUS!


At 200mm, the 70-200 won't come even remotely close to the quality of the 200 f/2. No competition. It costs an extra $2500 for a good reason.


The difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is very large. f/2 can be used easily for indoor sports, f/2.8, not so much.


Quote Originally Posted by Gomer
Many photographers seem to opt for the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
\


That's because it's $2000+ cheaper! If you can afford the 200/2, get it. You will need a good tripod, though.


I can't afford either, personally. But comparing the 70-200 with the 200/2 is like comparing a Lexus to a Lamborghini. No competition.


peety3 will second that and has tried the 200/2.





hope this helps


brendan [H]