With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?
It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's
I'd borrow or buy a 200 f/2L in a second if I could.
Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy right now and don't know any elite professionals with discerning clients to borrow from. I mostly know the "soccer mom" types. You know, idiots with pop-up flashes on their Rebels. Don't tell anybody though. I'm ashamed to hang around them. They aren't cut from the same cloth as I am. I'm silk. They're just plain old weekend warrior cotton.
However, if you ask nicely I'll send you a link to my Smugmug page.
Emphasis on smug.
Owning the 200 f/2 and 70-200 II... If you say there is a huge difference in images from both you're lying to yourself. Honestly the 200 f/2 is a great lens but is it worth the cost over the 70-200...nope. The 70-200 is way more useful and produces images of equal quality. I find most that own this lens own it for the "oooo and ahh" factor rather than utility. I can say I have it because I wanted it not because I needed it... in reality the 70-200 come out to play 90% of the time and the 200 stays in the case at home.
And Charles, I'll probably be selling most of my Canon gear over the next year or so... including my like new 200 f/2. Call me anytime you might want to take a big white for yourself...
Oh, and shoot me your smugmug link... I'd like to see it. www.davidkm.com
If you can't see the difference in those two lenses why even own it? It's a BIG difference in bokeh, color, distortion, sharpness and microcontrast, all of which add up to that pop I'm always looking for. I did a comparison with the 70-200 f2.8 and 135 L and 200 f2 to see the actual difference in pop and that stop REALLY makes a difference. And 70-200 II is very limited in terms of which backgrounds can look great, while the f2 makes everything look superb.
To most people the price difference isn't worth it, I don't care about that, but say the difference isn't there is just not true. I have shot the same places and subjects with all my lenses and the one I like second best after the 200 is the Zeiss 100 which share a lot of the qualities I want with the f2.
We all have different wants, I don't lug around the f2 because people think it looks cool, I use it despite being noticed a lot.
A HUGE difference... master of observation that you are missed that point. Not a huge difference. And you are lying to yourself when you call it a BIG difference. I could put up load of shots between it and a 135L and a 70-200 and I'd bet you can't pick just the 200 f/2 out of the bunch. Just do a image search and see for yourself.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens but is it THE portrait lens you say it is... nope, just another in the list. And as far as you getting anymore out of it than say the 70-200, nope. Let see your images with it !!! Let's see you show something that a 70-200 can't do... I'd love to see it as you say you're an owner with stellar results. I am an owner and have shown 200 f/2 images here and I'm saying no, not a huge difference between the two lenses. Show me some and I'll show you a handful of images with 200 f/2's mixed in and your "bokeh, color, distortion, sharpness and microcontrast" is total farce.
Let's see it...