November 26, 2014, 03:00:06 AM

Author Topic: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II  (Read 7557 times)

polarhannes

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:55:12 PM »
Hello everyone,

I own the 70-200 II and I am mostly doing portraiture.
Does someone here own both and can upload some sample shots (wide open)? The question is if the bokeh and sharpness really is that much better (of course it is, but is it worth the serious amount of cash? How much is the difference really in IQ and bokeh?)

I also thought of getting the 300 2.8 (which would then be my longest lens), but it might really be a bit long for portraits.

Thanks to all of you helpful people  :)
"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera." - Dorothea Lange

canon rumors FORUM

200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:55:12 PM »

Jim Saunders

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 935
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2014, 03:11:30 PM »
I've used the 200 f/2 briefly; it is very sharp indeed.  I should have one frame I kept at home somewhere if someone doesn't upload something first.  The only person who knows if a stop is worth six large is you, but I know I would like to get one of them and a 135 f/2 for indoor sports.

On that note what about the 135?  Do you use the long end more?

Jim
See what I see: 6500K, 160 cd/m^2, ICC 2, gamma 2.2.

cid

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
  • "light is defining shape"
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2014, 04:02:38 PM »
maybe this will help a bit
Lisa Holloway 500px profile

almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!
5D mark III + 24-70L f2.8 II + 70-200L f2.8 II + 100L f2.8
my photos on 500px

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4276
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2014, 04:11:01 PM »
maybe this will help a bit
Lisa Holloway 500px profile

almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!
Thanks for the link.  My GAS just shifted to another state.
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Jim Saunders

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 935
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2014, 04:15:23 PM »
I got this one under terrible light, hand-held, ISO to the moon.

Jim
See what I see: 6500K, 160 cd/m^2, ICC 2, gamma 2.2.

cid

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
  • "light is defining shape"
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2014, 04:19:23 PM »
maybe this will help a bit
Lisa Holloway 500px profile

almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!
Thanks for the link.  My GAS just shifted to another state.
I'm sorry for your wallet  ;D
5D mark III + 24-70L f2.8 II + 70-200L f2.8 II + 100L f2.8
my photos on 500px

Vern

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2014, 04:24:06 PM »
I have used both lenses for portraits but have never done a side-by-side comparison. You should take a look at the Digital Picture (www.the-digital-picture.com) for the review of the 200 f2. The IQ of the two at their respective max. aperture is pretty much identical and Bryan has a comparison of some portraits at 2.0 and 2.8 with the 200 f2 that will give you a good idea of the relative background blur. I bought the 200 2.0 for indoor volleyball where the extra speed is critical to stop action. I use the 135 f2.0 as well. While a great lens, its IQ is a notch down from the 200. If I was only shooting portraits, the 70-200 2.8II would be fine and adding the 200 2.0 would not be necessary. However, if you are additionally interested in indoor sports, the 2.0 is wonderful - and also can be used for amazing portraits - as Lisa Holloway's work highlights. Are they $6K better than the 70-200 could render? Only you can decide.
1Dx, 5DMKIII, 600 II, 300 II, 200 f2, 135 f2, 85 1.2 II, 100 2.8 IS, 24TS II, 70-200 II, 24-70 II, 16-35 II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2014, 04:24:06 PM »

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2112
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2014, 05:21:11 PM »
I've had every 70-200 Canon makes and had the 70-200 mk2 when I bought the 200, sold the 70-200 after a week when I promised myself I would keep it six months to be sure, but I have never looked back. There is NO lens like the 200 f2. It's simply insane in every aspect.

I bought mine used, it was hardly touched and only 13 months old and I saved 3238 dollars compared to buying it brand new. so it was actually only 2,5 times more than the 70-200 I already had..

The one lens I will NEVER sell..
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 05:23:42 PM by Viggo »
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

Perio

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2014, 06:55:05 PM »
Maybe a very simple comparison, but nevertheless I hope it helps. All images are taken with Canon 5d original. Just simple conversion from RAW to JPEG.

200 f2.0 at 2.0
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 07:00:23 PM by Perio »

Perio

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2014, 06:56:03 PM »
200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8; both at f2.8
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 07:00:38 PM by Perio »

Perio

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2014, 06:56:40 PM »
200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8 (both at f3.2)

Perio

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2014, 06:57:31 PM »
200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8 (both at f5.6)

Perio

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2014, 06:59:22 PM »
200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8 (both at f7.1)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2014, 06:59:22 PM »

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1513
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2014, 08:19:58 PM »
I've had every 70-200 Canon makes and had the 70-200 mk2 when I bought the 200, sold the 70-200 after a week when I promised myself I would keep it six months to be sure, but I have never looked back. There is NO lens like the 200 f2. It's simply insane in every aspect.

I bought mine used, it was hardly touched and only 13 months old and I saved 3238 dollars compared to buying it brand new. so it was actually only 2,5 times more than the 70-200 I already had..

The one lens I will NEVER sell..

Agree with Viggo, the 70-200f/2.8 II is a wonderful and very versatile Lens, the 200f/2 is simply a brilliant Lens.

If your thing is portraits I can't think of much that would do it better, the 200f/2 is a little less versatile than the 70-200f/2.8 II, but there's not much else that Canon make that's sharper then the 200f/2, maybe the 300f/2.8 II, maybe, I have all three, I generally grab the 200f/2 for anything other than wildlife..

I find myself more and more throwing the 200f/2 into the bag rather than the 70-200, unless I'm shooting wildlife, but for a longer Lens street work, Temples, People etc, the 200f/2 is just brilliant & it works so well on the 1Dx or the 5DMK III.

Be aware if you pick up a 2nd hand unit as Viggo has, you will need (unless it's been done) to get it into Canon to have the firmware upgraded for the 1Dx & 5DMK III, it works fine though without the upgrade on the earlier Canon Bodies, 5DMK II, 1DMK IV etc.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Crapking

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
  • "Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
    • View Profile
    • Crapking Photos
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2014, 09:25:08 PM »
Intensity by NAVBPhotos, on Flickr

Just another example from the 200/2 to look at. I shoot regularly with both, but if only had I chance, would ALWAYS grab the 200/2 - faster AF, better bokeh, more natural color tones, but the versatility/flexibility of the 70-200 sometimes trumps the 200....but if I have the space / time to plan my shots, the 200/2 is my go-to lens.

Even outdoors when the f2.0 isn't needed, there is just something about this lens...Tight Turn by NAVBPhotos, on Flickr
1Dx, 1DIV, 5D3, 7DII, (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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2014, 09:25:08 PM »