November 24, 2014, 04:32:14 AM

Author Topic: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II  (Read 7537 times)

docsmith

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2014, 10:41:08 PM »
wow....I've compared sharpness between the two before, but the difference in bokeh is amazing.

Unfortunately, I don't have a spare $6,000 lying around....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2014, 10:41:08 PM »

Hjalmarg1

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
  • Photo Hobbyist
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2014, 11:49:26 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  :)

If your thing is portrait, there is no doubt that the 200mm f2L is the king of bokeh but, for practical terms the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II does almost the same at 200mm. If you have deep pockets go for it.
I would keep saving and get the 300mm f2.8L IS II instead.
Body: 5DIII. Prime Lenses: 15mm f2.8, 100mm f2.8L IS, 35mm f2 IS, Extender EF 2X III.
Zoom Lenses: 16-35mm f4L IS, 24-70mm f2.8L, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. Others: Flash 580EX II, 270EX II & MR-14EX II

jasonsim

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Hobbyist
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2014, 01:12:07 AM »
I would say...save your $5000.  I was there and ended up keeping the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  For capturing fast moving sports, there is no substitute for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. 

For portraits, I would suggest an 85mm f/1.2L II and / or 135mm f/2L.  I had both and kept the 135mm for head shots.  Kept the 50mm f/1.2L and sold off the 85mm f/1.2L II.  But I do think that the 85mm II is the king of bokeh.  It was just that I did not use it enough and always ended up taking my 24-70 f/2.8L II + 50 f/1.2L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II around in my bag. 

Sure the bokeh is nice with the 200mm f/2L, but I'd wager that my 300mm f/2.8L II or 600mm f/4L II's bokeh is even nicer!  Those are just not so practical for portraiture.  So stick with something you are most likely to use and keep in your bag. 

You might also look into a 200mm f/1.8L; I liked it even more than the 200mm f/2L; but it is also gone for same reason of lack of use:

Cams: Canon 5D3, EOS M
Zooms: 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II; Primes: 22mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 600mm f/4L IS II
Support: Gitzo GT4542LS/G2258, RRS BH-55, Wimberley WH-200

Claret-Flyer

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2014, 02:44:00 AM »
For portraits, I would suggest an 85mm f/1.2 is unbeatable. Just the right level of compression, the sharpness and bokeh to die for and your close enough to your subject to have chat with them and make feel relaxed. You also don't need a massive studio.

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2014, 03:48:04 AM »
It might not be for everyone of course, but I feel a bit of bubbling in my belly when I keep seeing people say "it's almost the same as the 70-200 @ 200" no it is not. It might not be worth it to you, but it's a BIG difference. I must've read a thousand user reviews that said the same and 90% had one thing in common, they were written by people who had read other user revies, not by people owning or using the lens.

The 85 L is wonderful for some things, but "sharpness to die for" when we're talking about the 200 f2? Yeah, not so much.

And I think what makes a lens give that pop, is very high level of sharpness against the smoothest possible background and there there is no lens like the 200, unless you go even higher up. But for portraits I find 200 is the longest you should go for head shots.

Again, it isn't for everyone and god knows it's a lot of money, so if you're happy with the 70-200, there's nothing wrong about that, because it's absolutely killer and one of the best zooms ever made. But it's never going to be "basically the same as the 200".

1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

polarhannes

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2014, 09:04:39 AM »
Thanks everyone for your great help - especially to Perio for creating the test shots. Just what I was looking for!

The bokeh @2.8 (and of course @2.0) really shows the difference. Wow, what a lens!

I rented the 85 1.2 II a couple of times but I found it too slow AF wise and I really prefer the long end for full-body shots, even if it means that I have to walk far away from my subject.

The question is if the comparison between the 135 2.0 and the 70-200 is as dramatic as the 200 2.0?

I currently have in my kit the 16-35 2.8 L II, 24-70 2.8 L II, 70-200 2.8 L II, 100 2.8 L IS Macro (which is a very sharp and very often overlooked lens, might be a bit redundant to add the 135 L then), Sigma 35 Art (which is too risky for me to use in critical situations due to AF issues) and the Shorty Forty (which I use as a camera protection cap lol).
I use the 5d3 and the 1DX and always bring my flashes when possible, so filter usage is important when outdoors (sync speed).
It is not that I am not satisfied with my kit, but I just feel I could add some more 'wow' to my images. Maybe I should just visit some Photoshop classes :-) I will post some pictures later on.

I really love this forum, so much great advice!
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 09:07:14 AM by polarhannes »
"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera." - Dorothea Lange

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3017
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2014, 10:50:20 AM »
Just to add one thing - the 300 f/2.8 IS II is awesome for portraits if you have the room, but it's not exactly the first choice for me.  It's big, heavy, and conspicuous (sort of like the 200L), but does deliver great results.  I prefer the 85L (which is my first choice for posed portraits), but Canon makes so many fine portrait lenses that it's hard to choose for sure.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2014, 10:50:20 AM »

Invertalon

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2014, 01:01:05 PM »
^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!

6M3C8536.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C8521.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C8575.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C8538.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C5474.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C7728.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3017
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2014, 01:07:46 PM »
^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!
Nice examples!  The bokeh on the lizard shot is insane!

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2014, 02:37:48 PM »
^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!
Nice examples!  The bokeh on the lizard shot is insane!

I love the lizard shot also, very nice color and the light is spot on ! (Pun intended)
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

Perio

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2014, 04:36:20 PM »
Thanks everyone for your great help - especially to Perio for creating the test shots. Just what I was looking for!

Sure, no problem. If you need a more specific comparison, just let me know and I'll do that.

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1513
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2014, 07:27:06 PM »
Again, completely agree with Viggo's comments, I own & use the 85f/1.2, 135f/2, 70-200f/2.8, all excellent lenses, but the 200f/2 is just head & shoulders apart, the sharpness, the Bokeh & the colour rendition are just about perfect. The 70-200f/2.8 II @ 200 ?? lovely, but just not as good as the 200f/2.

If you can get past the price you will not likely regret owning this lens.

The attached is an example of what the lens can do, Japan in Autumn 1Dx 200f/2 @ f/2
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

jasonsim

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Hobbyist
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2014, 08:50:25 PM »
300 f/2.8L IS II is awesome.  Sharpest lens in Canon's line-up and killer bokeh.


 
With 1.4x III added:



With 2x III added:



The results with the extenders is simply amazing.  Any extender on the 200mm f/2L IS and it falls to pieces.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 08:53:37 PM by jasonsim »
Cams: Canon 5D3, EOS M
Zooms: 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II; Primes: 22mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 600mm f/4L IS II
Support: Gitzo GT4542LS/G2258, RRS BH-55, Wimberley WH-200

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2014, 08:50:25 PM »

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1513
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2014, 10:47:47 PM »
300 f/2.8L IS II is awesome.  Sharpest lens in Canon's line-up and killer bokeh.

Any extender on the 200mm f/2L IS and it falls to pieces.

Well I can agree with the first point, the 300f/2.8 II is an amazingly sharp Lens & it does work well with the 1.4x III Extender, the 2x III Extender not as well, but that's to be expected.

I can't see the 2nd point though, the 200f/2 works just as well with the 1.4x III Extender as the 300 in my experience, perhaps not as well as the 300 with the 2x III Extender.

I've had the 200f/2 for several Years now & used the Lens extensively, my current 300f/2.8 is the Version II, bought after selling the Version 1, both these Lenses are sharp, the V II maybe, maybe a tad sharper, but the benefits here at least to me have been mostly in the weight distribution and the weight loss.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Perio

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2014, 11:41:36 PM »
300 f/2.8L IS II is awesome.  Sharpest lens in Canon's line-up and killer bokeh.

Any extender on the 200mm f/2L IS and it falls to pieces.

Well I can agree with the first point, the 300f/2.8 II is an amazingly sharp Lens & it does work well with the 1.4x III Extender, the 2x III Extender not as well, but that's to be expected.

I can't see the 2nd point though, the 200f/2 works just as well with the 1.4x III Extender as the 300 in my experience, perhaps not as well as the 300 with the 2x III Extender.

I've had the 200f/2 for several Years now & used the Lens extensively, my current 300f/2.8 is the Version II, bought after selling the Version 1, both these Lenses are sharp, the V II maybe, maybe a tad sharper, but the benefits here at least to me have been mostly in the weight distribution and the weight loss.

The comparison I'd love to see is Canon 200 f2.0 vs. Zeiss 135 f2.0 ZE. Does anyone have both lenses to compare?  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2014, 11:41:36 PM »