Canon 70-200 vs 200 prime

amtaylor

amtaylor

Messages
1,782
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I've heard differing opinions on which has the best iq between the 70-200 mark ii and the 200 mk ii prime. Some reviews say the weak point of the zoom is the 200 end and some say its better than the prime. Also how does the prime compare for af speed and taking a 2x converter?
 
The 70-200 is a very versatile lens I have the mk1 IS and it's amazing I love it, it's pretty damn sharp at 2.8 at 200mm I can't comment on the 200 prime but I have the 135mm f2 which is a lovely lens but they are very different lens's it depends on what you photography and what your budget is. The 70-200 f4 is by all accounts a cracking lens, which if you find the correct t shop you can get 2nd hand for around £350. good luck.
 
brad_wakefield said:
The 70-200 is a very versatile lens I have the mk1 IS and it's amazing I love it, it's pretty damn sharp at 2.8 at 200mm I can't comment on the 200 prime but I have the 135mm f2 which is a lovely lens but they are very different lens's it depends on what you photography and what your budget is. The 70-200 f4 is by all accounts a cracking lens, which if you find the correct t shop you can get 2nd hand for around £350. good luck.
Click to expand...

Well I will get the 135 at some point but the 200 is pretty cheap and I do like my primes, if it could handle a 2x all right I would be happy. Got no money the moment but I like to line up my purchases. Gives me something to look forward to.
 
The 200 2.8 can be found very cheep, if it helps I have used my 135 with a 1.4 and I didn't notice any image quality loss, what about a 400 5.6 or a 300 f4 if you want the reach
 
70-200/2.8L IS II is a definite must have for me. After using it, didn't really see the need for a 200mm prime also at f/2.8 - thus the 135/2 which I also utterly love. And it's still a 190/2.8 with a 1.4x extender if I'm not carrying the big white.

Primes are great but get the zoom :) Now 300/2.8 is a different story..
 
Very interested in this question. With a 135L and 200L in my bag, I reckon I can live without a 70-200L. If the iq is as good or better, that's a very attractive prospect. A bit more discreet too. It would be very interesting to hear from someone who has experience with both.
 
I've had all the 70-200mm's the 200mm f/2.8 and I still have the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and the 135mm f/2.

I would defy anyone to be able to tell the difference between the 200mm f/2.8 prime, the copy I had, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II so that is why I sold my 200mm prime ( a cracking lens).

There is a huge difference between a Mk1 70-200 f/2.8 and a MkII, it's very noticeable. I had no issues with the Mk1 and it was probably as sharp as any other Mk1 but when I first got the MkII suddenly the difference seemed awesome. It's not only the sharpness, it's the colours too and the whole quality of the image.
 
In my experience 200mm is only marginally better than 70-200 f/4 non-is, and the lack of IS at 200mm is fairly pronounced. I wouldn't say that 200mm is that great with 1.4x, but neither is f/4 non-is zoom. I'd really go for IS II zoom if you can afford it.
 
My vote goes for the 200mm prime. I use a nearly 20 year old mk1 version, it's great. I suspect that there would be no winner in a sharpness contest, so the chief advantage, as I see it, is to save 700g when out and about, and have an extra £1400 in my pocket.
 
Yeah I'm inclined to agree. If the prime is no worse than the zoom is rather just have the prime as I can get the 135 and the 200 and probably a converter too for the price if the zoom.
 
I can't give you a comparison between the 70-200 2.8L II and the 200mm 2.8L II but I used to have the 70-200F4L and now have the 200 2.8L II - for me the difference in sharpness is quite obvious between those two lenses. I also like the fact that the 200mm 2.8L II is so much more discreet than the white zooms. It also takes the 1.4 II very well..
 
brad_wakefield said:
The 200 2.8 can be found very cheep, if it helps I have used my 135 with a 1.4 and I didn't notice any image quality loss, what about a 400 5.6 or a 300 f4 if you want the reach
Click to expand...

Can you give me some pointers as to where I can find this cheap? The best price for a new one is about 550 quid (not considering the Argos price) and the used ones sell for about 450...

amtaylor, have you made your decision? I've also been pondering this for a number of days now...

Cheers
 
There is one for sale in the forums for 400 but I guess you don't have the posts yet.
I will go with the prime when my funds have recovered from a 5d2 purchase.
 
amtaylor said:
There is one for sale in the forums for 400 but I guess you don't have the posts yet.
I will go with the prime when my funds have recovered from a 5d2 purchase.
Click to expand...

Nope...not yet
And thanks for the vote on the prime...I'm tending towards that as well
 
amtaylor said:
What is the mark 1 prime like. I had heard its optically and mechanically the same. Anyone confirm?
Click to expand...

Been there, deffo not as good as the MkII
 
admirable said:
Been there, deffo not as good as the MkII
Click to expand...

Cheers. I'll get the mark 2 then. They're not that expensive. I missed out on the argos deal at 469. They had them in stock at my local store. The wife said no. She changed her mind the next day and they are sold out in every store. Sob cry sniff
 
Just picked the 200mm II on the bay for a good price. Waiting for the weekend :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top