September 23, 2014, 10:45:39 AM

Author Topic: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens  (Read 8702 times)

TM

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
I finally purchased the Canon 200mm f2.0. It's an amazing lens by itself and produces great photos.  It's also huge and with the hood, takes up all the space in my backpack.

The 70-200mm is smaller, relatively cheap, more versatile and at 200mm f2.8, can get close to great results, but not quite the same caliber.  Do you guys still manage to make use of both 70-200mm f2.8 II and the 200mm f2.0 regularly? What are your thoughts?
Canon 5DIII, 5DII,  24mm TS-E II L, Sigma 35mm ƒ1.4, 50mm ƒ1.4, 85mm ƒ1.2 L II, 100mm ƒ2.8 micro, 200mm ƒ2.0 L IS, 16-35 ƒ2.8 L II, 24-70 ƒ2.8 L II, 24-105m ƒ4, 70-200 ƒ2.8 L II, 3x 580exII

canon rumors FORUM


FunPhotons

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2013, 06:44:33 AM »
I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  :o ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2013, 08:11:21 AM »
I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  :o ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?

No no no nonono. 200 f2 is specialized lens for low light/super bokeh. 70-200 is a versatile, multi purpose lens broadly speaking.
Yes, the 200 is for specialty uses and nothing comes close... :)

rdalrt

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Just Sports Photography
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2013, 08:36:56 AM »
I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?

Indoor sports for me, where 2.8 just won't cut it.
1D X (x2) | 1D IV (x2) | 5D | 400 f/2.8L IS II | 200 f/2L IS | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 24-70L II | 24-105 | 16-35L II | 8-15L | 135L | 85 | 600ex-rt (x2) | 550ex | Einsteins (x4) |
Just Sports Photography

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3453
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2013, 10:30:08 AM »
Portraits and sports are the top uses for the 200L2. I'd get it over a 300 f/2.8 because its a more useful focal length for me. It's a whole stop faster than the 70-200 and a stop is a lot! That's like from 1/250 to 1/500th.

Crapking

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • "Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
    • View Profile
    • Crapking Photos
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2013, 11:31:53 AM »
I use both concurrently (with 2 bodies obviously) giving me the flexibility and added focal range of the zoom and the extra stop / bokeh when I need/want it.  Also, with the 1.4 TC, I still get 280/2.8 when I must position myself further from my usual courtside action.
While slightly larger than the 70-200/2.8 II, the 200/2 still fits (unattached) in my ThinkTank Digital Holster, giving me the added flexibility of having 3 lenses (the third being the 135/2) on my 2 bodies and a dual Black Rapid strap system.
I simply prefer/require the extra stop in most arenas.  :)
The fast focus ring and AF stop buttons, along with the blazing fast AF are nice extras :)
I love my 70-200 (like my mother) but LOVE my 200 (like my WIFE).

As for portraits, it is a bit bulky for street / event shooting, but for sessions on location where I can control distance to subject, it is an excellent choice.
1Dx, 1DIV, 5D3, 7D, (Sigma 15 FE)
16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8 II; 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400L
35/1.4, 40/2.8; 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2; 200/2

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2580
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2013, 11:48:34 AM »
The 200 f/2L is very useful for sports where you need f/2 to f/2.5 at 1/500s.  It is also a tremendous portrait lens if you like that unique focal length for that.  It is super sharp across all apertures, including f/2.  There's no distortion, whereas the 70-200 does have some at 200.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2013, 11:48:34 AM »

PavelR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2013, 06:25:41 PM »
I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  :o ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?
The reason you do not understand this lens is: "you do not have one".
200/2 @ 2.8 is far better than 70-200II@200/2.8, thus I use it (200/2) anytime I do not need flexibility of the zoom (mostly outdoors) and/or need push ISO above 800 (or get rid of using a flash), than I switch to 200/2 and use it @ 2-2.8 to get better shutter speed.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2580
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2013, 06:50:04 PM »
When I first purchased the lens I did a lot of work with it for indoor volleyball this past fall on a monopod.  The advantage was that I could open up to f/2.2 (which I badly needed in that dang gym) and the sharpness at f/2.2 is probably sharper yet than the 135L at f/2.2, and that is saying a lot!
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4052
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2013, 07:13:18 PM »
I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  :o ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?

As LRphoto mentioned... it's one f-stop bigger than f2.8 meaning x2 amount of light hitting the sensor. The sport shooters would gain one full stop in shutter speed exp.1/500 to 1/1000.

If IQ of this lens is same as 70-200 , Canon wouldn't put HUGE THE PRICE tag on it.

Off Topic: just like many people still believe the IQ of new Tammy 24-70 is same or better than Canon 24-70 f2.8 II :'(
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 07:30:22 PM by Dylan777 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2580
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2013, 07:35:39 PM »
I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  :o ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?

As LRphoto mentioned... it's one f-stop bigger than f2.8 meaning x2 amount of light hitting the sensor. The sport shooters would gain one full stop in shutter speed exp.1/500 to 1/1000.

If IQ of this lens is same as 70-200 , Canon wouldn't put HUGE THE PRICE tag on it.

Off Topic: just like many people still believe the IQ of new Tammy 24-70 is same or better than Canon 24-70 f2.8 II :'(

Sorry I forgot to mention that too.  No, the IQ of the two lenses aren't quite the same.  The 200 is actually a bit sharper, and the main thing for me as a sports shooter, is NO distortion.  The 70-200L gives some distortion at the long end and I've battled this throughout the winter.

The gain for the zoom is the flexibility.  This has to be Canon's best IQ zoom lens, or had to be until the 24-70L II became available.  The 70-200L defeats a lot of the prime lenses in that range, however, the 200 f/2L is not one of those.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

No Mayo

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2013, 08:54:02 PM »
I own and use both lenses. Full disclosure; I also have the 85/1.2, 100/2.8L, and the 135/2. All of these focal lengths are represented by the (totally awesome) 70-200 2.8II zoom as well. This might mean that I am addicted to glass (guilty), or that I try to utilize the advantages that each lens has over the other (hopefully also true). Let's face it (I did when I gulped and clicked the purchase button for the 200/2) this lens is expensive and it is much bigger/heavier than the zoom. If you are needing to dismiss the zoom as inferior in order to justify the purchase you are really missing the point. This lens is not for everyone, but it is a killer lens! Some may say, hey I will just shoot at 200 ISO instead of 100. The problem is when you don't get to choose what the light level is. What about when the groom steps out of the center spot of the altar while you are shooting at 1/125, 2.8, 400 (from the mandatory balcony at the rear of the sanctuary) and walks to the side of the chancel, sits down at the piano which makes him effectively disappear (much like the predator). After my eyes adjusted to his black suit sitting at a black piano in a void of illumination I was changing my settings to 1/80, f2, and 12,800 ISO! I suppose that the zoom would have given me 25,600 but I was already horrified with going from 400 to 12,800. I could have used my 135 or 85, but that would put him much further away and he would have been in stark contrast to the comparative alien abduction that his bride and pastor were experiencing. Being able to Isolate him in the frame was critical. Getting the lowest ISO possible was also critical. From where I was, nothing in the Canon family was as well equipped to get the shot than the 200/2. Now I also got some great shots in the feature lighting of the altar at much more ideal settings. This also gave me a somewhat sharper image than the shots taken with the 70-200. I was also able to isolate the couple a little more at 2.0 than 2.8. But at least as important was the ability to shoot with the zoom in order to frame the bridesmaids and the groomsmen respectively. I do not view these lenses as competing, but as 2 separate tools to help a photographer get the shot. Any sports action shots when you are squeezing the shutter speed and ISO levels or just trying to isolate your subject will be incredibly well served with this lens. If you are a pro and need what this lens gives you, you probably already own it. If you are trying to justify it, rent it and you might just save yourself 6K and a backache. I use the zoom for more shots, but the 200/2 is a lens that will continue to perform for me when I need that reach and max speed. The zoom is a better value. An automobile is a better value than an airplane. I would bet that anyone that owns a plane also owns an automobile. The reverse is much less likely. This is a great example of a lens that for most shooters is better to rent than own, but one of the saddest days of your life just may be the day you return this one at the end of your rental agreement.       

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2013, 09:16:44 PM »
And don't forget you can stack two 2x teleconverters and get an 800mm f/8 that will still autofocus on a 1D-series (I'd like to see how usable that would be though, any of you lucky-suckers who own one wanna test?).
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2013, 09:16:44 PM »

ksagomonyants

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2013, 12:33:54 AM »
I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  :o ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?

No no no nonono. 200 f2 is specialized lens for low light/super bokeh. 70-200 is a versatile, multi purpose lens broadly speaking.
Yes, the 200 is for specialty uses and nothing comes close... :)

Congratulations on your purchase! Although I don't own 70-200 2.8, I'd agree with this response. If I expect my subject to move or have limited space, I'd probably get the 70-200 which is probably close to 200 2.0 in terms of the sharpness and quality. But if you're photographing a model outdoors and like the smooth bokeh and exceptional sharpness, I'd use 200 2.0. I really like the way the bokeh looks at f2.0 vs. 2.8. Hope it helps!

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2013, 03:01:29 AM »
No one seems to have mentioned the unbelievable color palette the 200 f/2 produces (if you did, I missed it).  You will never see color better from any other lens on earth, than with that one.  Even the 85mm f/1.2 looks like watercolor, compared to the old master oil via the 200 f/2.  The Nikon 200 f/2 might be similar, but I don't care about it, haha.  I suppose there might be a Leica lens that could approach the Canon 200 f/2's color rendition, but I have no personal experience with them...and it certainly would be shorter than 100mm focal length.  So at 200mm, there just is nothing else.  You own a zoom, for the zoom...which certainly can be a vital usage.  If you need a lighter-weight lens, that's valid too. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2013, 03:01:29 AM »