compare 70-200 to prime 200

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,994
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
I have a canon 70-200 non is f2.8L lens.. its good.. but not as good as the prime 300 and thats normal

I am thinking of getting rid and getting a canon ef 200 2.8l lens..

I wont miss the zoom and will be happy wiht 200mm but will the picture quality be better or on a par with a 70-200 ?

Anyone?
 
Tony...you'll see the improvement without recourse to pixel peeping. The 200L also takes a 1.4x and 2x T/C without much fuss....a very discreet 400/5.6 if required.

Bob
 
The 200L 2.8 is quite a simple lens compared to other L Canons, like the 200L 2 and 300L 2.8 either side. I guess that is reflected in the price.

Canons's MTF graphs, which I think are the most reliable tests for sharpness, show that the zoom is quite a bit sharper in the centre, and pretty much everywhere else, too. The prime only beats it on edge sharpness, which you will only ever get to see on full frame.

Edit: Oops, crossed post with Bob. Contrary evidence suggests a side by side comparison might be a good plan. StewartR LensesForHire?
 
I had a 70-200 f/4 and found it to be almost identical to a 135L and 85 f/1.8 at similar apertures. I even borrowed a 100-300 (I think) non L, non USM with a big scratch on the front element and it too was unbelievably close.

I would buy a 200 for it's take anywhere lightness and low profile or a 70-200 for convenience, not necessarily for image quality.

And that is suggesting that they are all excellent.

Graham
 
hmm so I wouldnt gain going from the 70-200 to the 200 prime then it would seem... hmm

thanks for the comments and insight peeps :)
 
I had the option of getting a 70-200 2.8 or the 200 2.8. Of course, I wanted a 200 2.0 :)

In the end I decided to spend the extra on the 70-200 2.8 as I really wanted the flexibility. And I think the image quality is superb. You're probably splitting hairs with the quality from the prime though I'm sure it is a tad better. But for the situations where you'd be using it, the flexibility of the zoom is worth more than the IQ of the prime.
 
The prime is a good deal lighter than the zoom, which may be a consideration.

Me, having had the f/4 70-200, have since gone for the 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2, and the 200mm f/2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top