200mm versus the yet to be released 70-200mm

[Gomer]

The 200mm f/2.0L IS USM seems to be praised as the sharpest lens Canon makes. It also is very fast at 2.0. For a few more days I could buy one with a $500 discount. Many photographers seem to opt for the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS which is about to be updated to a new "II" version with claimed improved optics, shorter focusing distance, faster focusing, better IS than the current model. The zoom offers zoom flexibility and less weight/bulk - but is slower and I presume the optics still won't nearly match the fixed 200mm.


I find the 200mm focal length useful for sporting events where I can be relatively close to the action (the fastest lens would be useful here because they often don't occur outdoors in the sun) and capturing closeups in group settings.


Decision time - grab the fixed lens for $4,800 now or wait for the new 70-200 which I would guess will be north of $2,500. Would I see a difference in pictures taken at 200mm? Is the f2.0 versus 2.8 a big deal?

[Brendan7]

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.

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]

[Keith B]

Personally, I need flexibility from such an investment. It looks like the 70-200 mkII is going to sharper at 200 so I think I'd wait for that. If I were going for a fixed telephoto lens I'd prefer the 135 2.0 L over the 200 2.0 L just to save $4k. If you've got the money and always shoot at 200mm you can't do much better than the 200 2.0.


The difference between 2.0 and 2.8 (since you shoot sports I wouldn't sacrifice shutter speed), is shooting a given shutter speed @ ISO400 with the 2.0 to shooting @ ISO800 with the 2.8.

[JJphoto]

I'd prefer the 135 2.0 L over the 200 2.0 L just to save $4k

yes, I agree with that. and it's better if Canon will upgrade 135 2.0 to a IS version. also $4K is a lot of money, you can get a 300 2.8 or a nice body(3D maybe?)with even better high ISO performance in few years good enough to off set that difference between 2.0 and 2.8(just for the same shutter speed), and as always, if you want the best IQ and have the money to burn, go with the best you can get.

[Daniel Browning]

Would I see a difference in pictures taken at 200mm?

At f/2, you would definitely see a difference: thinner DOF, more diffuse background blur, less noise. It's like a different world.

At f/2.8, the difference is not as startling: less distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, flare, contrast, sharpness, etc. Many of these can be corrected well in post-processing, if you do that, then the difference will be even smaller.

Let's say for example that the new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS gets improved so much that it matches the 70-200 f/4 L IS when both are wide open. This is what you would see:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Revie...LI=4&API=0


The difference will be bigger the wider the f-number, the larger you print, or the more you crop.

Is the f2.0 versus 2.8 a big deal?

Yes. It's huge. Let me put it this way:

• 200 MPH vs 400 MPH
• 1/1000 vs 1/2000
• 150 pounds vs 300 pounds
• ISO 6400 vs ISO 12800
• 3 feet tall vs 6 feet tall

[Dallasphotog]

Anybody shooting indoor sports with the EF200mm f/2.0? I'd love to see some results. I don't know anyone in my area shooting with one yet and it's too expensive to make my wish list for 2010 unless...

[Colin]

Is the f2.0 versus 2.8 a big deal?

Yes. It's huge. Let me put it this way:

• 200 MPH vs 400 MPH

<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I'd lean towards 200 mph vs. 280 mph. Only 1.4x the speed, but twice the kinetic energy to deal with in a crash... And, twice the stopping distance...


(hee hee) get it? I made a joke!