I'm mulling over 2 lenses (70-200mm f/2.8L USM or the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II)

[jdramirez]

Obviously there are similarities in focal length and aperture.  Neither have image stabilization.  I have heard the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135... which raises the question, is the additional range I will get worth the additional 400 dollars.  I've already bought the 70-200, so I've answered my question, but I got it as such a good price, that I could sell it within a matter of days and then just get the 200 prime.

At the moment, I am shooting a ton of football games (pee-wee level).  And I imagine I will be shooting indoor girls basketball games here in the next few weeks. 

I already have a 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.

Any advice is appreciated.  If the 200mm prime is incredibly sharp wide open... or isn't head and shoulders better than the 70-200mm... I'll stick with the zoom.  But I also don't want to use the 135-200mm range and be so disappointed that I never bother to use the lens. 

[candyman]

Did you consider for indoor the 135mm f/2. ? Sharp and good for indoorsports
If you need the range between 135 and 200, you may have to stick with the current lens though it is f/2.8
I don't own the 200 f/2.8. But review and comments are very positive. The lens sharpness is beaten by the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II and the 200 f/2
 
 

[pwp]

Any advice is appreciated.  If the 200mm prime is incredibly sharp wide open... or isn't head and shoulders better than the 70-200mm... I'll stick with the zoom.  But I also don't want to use the 135-200mm range and be so disappointed that I never bother to use the lens.

Keep the zoom. No question. The 135-200 range will not disappoint you. If there is any variation at that range, maybe it slips from stellar to merely awesome.

-PW

[noncho]

I would go for 200 2.8L, since you have 100L.
It seems you like primes

[verysimplejason]

I would go for 200 2.8L, since you have 100L.
It seems you like primes

100L doesn't seem to be for made for sports.  200 2.8L is fine but indoors, I don't think it's flexible enough.  I don't know but I tested one and found it a little bit slow compared to some other USM lenses.  If I were you, I'll get the 70-200mm F2.8.  If you're using 5D3, just get a 70-200 F4 IS USM if your budget can't get you a 70-200 F2.8 USM IS.  You can still go for high speed shooting using high ISO.  If you're using a 7D, then go for the 70-200 F2.8 USM.  Just bring a monopod or shoot at higher shutter speed.

[jdramirez]

Did you consider for indoor the 135mm f/2. ? Sharp and good for indoorsports
If you need the range between 135 and 200, you may have to stick with the current lens though it is f/2.8
I don't own the 200 f/2.8. But review and comments are very positive. The lens sharpness is beaten by the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II and the 200 f/2

I did consider the 135mm f/2L, but it is so close to in focal length to my 100mm f/2.8L Macro... it would seems a bit too redundant.  And I really like my 100mm macro, so I wouldn't want to get rid of it just for the extra stop of light and the extra awesome bokeh, and the faster AF motor.  And keeping both... maybe if I have extra cash to burn, but my "hobby" is an issue of strife in my household.

I did consider the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mk ii, but I'd rather have three nice lenses rather than one super lens.  But as I save up cash... I think that will probably be what I upgrade to. 

[jdramirez]

Any advice is appreciated.  If the 200mm prime is incredibly sharp wide open... or isn't head and shoulders better than the 70-200mm... I'll stick with the zoom.  But I also don't want to use the 135-200mm range and be so disappointed that I never bother to use the lens.

Keep the zoom. No question. The 135-200 range will not disappoint you. If there is any variation at that range, maybe it slips from stellar to merely awesome.

-PW

I've owned the 70-200mm f/4L USM twice... and both times I was disappointed with my results.  They weren't bad, but I didn't think it was worth the 3x cost of the 55-250mm.  And my concern with the 70-200mm f/2.8L usm is that the 7x cost won't blow me away.  And I really think what I'm doing is romanticizing how great my old 55-250mm was. 

[jdramirez]

I would go for 200 2.8L, since you have 100L.
It seems you like primes

I do and I don't.  I think about getting the 200mm prime and then buying a 2nd body so I can have the 100mm on one body and the 200 on another, but then I think... do I really want to be that guy?  I know pro's walk around with 2 bodies all the time, but I'm a good amateur and I think walking around looking like that will make me look like a prick (who's a good amateur). 

I've said this before, but I like zooms that perform as well as primes...

[jdramirez]

100L doesn't seem to be for made for sports.  200 2.8L is fine but indoors, I don't think it's flexible enough.  I don't know but I tested one and found it a little bit slow compared to some other USM lenses.  If I were you, I'll get the 70-200mm F2.8.  If you're using 5D3, just get a 70-200 F4 IS USM if your budget can't get you a 70-200 F2.8 USM IS.  You can still go for high speed shooting using high ISO.  If you're using a 7D, then go for the 70-200 F2.8 USM.  Just bring a monopod or shoot at higher shutter speed.

I know the 100mm L macro isn't designed for sports, but for the next 5 or so years, I will be photographing 6 to 14 year olds.  So the speeds on the field isn't spectacular (oh and the kids are white which further elaborates on the speed of the game).  So AF servo + the 100mm macro have been fine for the time being.  I think in 5 years I might upgrade to the 135 for the better AF motor and the additional stop of light. 

I have a 60D right now so the iso is on par with the 7D.  I was mulling over upgrading to a 5D mk ii in a year or two, but I have heard so many awful things about its auto focus system that I think I might just continue to save my pennies for the 5D mkiii.  But I don't want to lose the 1.6 crop factor reach either... so maybe I'll get a 5D mkii for indoor photos and just upgrade the 60D to a 70D for sports when that time comes. 

I don't like upping the iso... but I do when I have no other alternative.  But I do have a makeshift monopod that I installed a ballhead onto, so I think I will try and use that effectively for a while and see where that takes me. 

I do have to say, I REALLY enjoy taking sports photos in moderate sunlight.  I'm getting shutter speeds at 1/6000 of a second when using the f/2.8.

[risc32]

you like to take photos of moving targets. zoom. no doubt. i have this lens, and whatever IQ advantage the 200mm prime may have is gone once you have to start cropping. Obviously, with a zoom you are doing all or at least nearly doing all your framing at the time of exposure, so you're always working with max resolution. not to mention when things get closer than you expected you'll still get a shot because you can go wider. Honestly, i think something might be wrong with you guys who would recommend a 200mm f2.8 prime over a 70-200mmf2.8 for action.  some sort of prime sickness i guess.


- i just read your last post, and i'm trying to still give you solid advise, while thinking of your racist statement. that and other things like a makeshift monopod? man, a decent monopod is not an expensive item ..... why... forget it. i think you need a 24mmTS.

[ScottyP]

A fixed 200mm lens seems like it would have all the awkwardness of a much longer prime, but without sufficient reach to make it worthwhile.  I'd go with the zoom.  Especially on a crop frame.  You'd constantly have that feeling like trying to carry a 12' long board through a department store. 

You know the feeling, right?  Maybe that is a poor metaphor.

[Standard]

I own the 100L Macro and it is one of my favorites, extremely versatile. Most people don't seem to tap its full potential and only use it strictly for macros. It is extremely sharp for portraits and I love using it in the winter in snow because of it's long lens hood (which keeps out the elements quite well). I also have the 135L as well as the 200L you're inquiring about. Most photographers will recommend the 70-200L 2.8. Personally, I much prefer the 200L because of weight and color, very discreet to use not only for street photography but for everything else as well. It is superb for portraits in natural light, producing beautiful tight framing and smooth bokeh. The 200L is one of Canon's best kept secret as it's often overlooked, always overshadowed by the 70-200L zooms.

If you like prime lenses, I would highly recommend the 200L. Shooting with primes require discipline and the patience to look at your subjects differently. However, the end results are much more rewarding.

[7enderbender]

I decided against the 70-200 2.8L IS II in favor of a 200 2.8LII and a 135L. You are looking at the original version of the non-IS 2.8 zoom which from what I heard has some optical issues. Not sure about that and I have never tried that one.

I find the big zooms cumbersome and limited in what you can use them for given their size, weight and the awful white design drawing attention. If you are only using this focal length for sports or weddings and/or it makes you money than that's a different question. My 200 is pretty much always in my large or medium bag any time a big white heavy lens would probably be home.

I like my 200 and have never regretted my decision. My main use are portraits, the kids running around, kids' sports and dance performance, etc. Works great, don't miss the IS - actually I'm glad it doesn't have. One less thing that gives in one day.

The 200 and the 135 are very similar in design and quality.

[eli72]

The biggest problem with using only the 200 is that if you are close to the field you will not be able to zoom to get all of the action. I have used (and own) both the 200 and the 70-200. I used to like to use the 200 at hockey games because from my seats I was always shooting at 200mm anyway. I did not find that the quality was appreciably different with either lens in a real world setting. When shooting lacrosse, when I'm right on the sidelines, I'd never think to use the fixed 200 because when there's closeup action I wouldn't be able to take it in.
The 200 is definitely lighter and easier to use for a long day's shoot, but I'd still prefer the 70-200.

[helpful]

If you're actually using your choice of lens for any significant time interval, you'll hate the 70-200mm and will prefer the lighter option, unless you have the privilege of standing there with a monopod like some of the fat photographers do.

Another consideration is you simply can't move fast enough with the 70-200mm (wait before responding, "I can!"--what I am saying is that no matter how fast you can move with the 70-200mm, you can move much more quickly with the 200mm f/2.8L prime lens).

I would strongly urge you to buy another body and put the 85mm f/1.8 lens on it, and use that with your existing camera and the 200mm f/2.8 L II. If you're really going to be working a lot with the 70-200mm, the two-camera alternative is way better, and both lenses are sharper at comparable apertures than the 70-200mm.

That combo produces much more success for me over the past million photos or so than the 70-200mm ever did.

I had the 70-200mm for a while and hated it all the time, and sold it for $800. I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS version II, but it definitely doesn't get nearly as much use as my 200mm and 85mm prime lenses.

Some things the 70-200 just isn't even an option for. I dread even the thought of trying to cover fast-moving two-hour sporting events with it.

Ok, the 70-200mm is "effortless" to hold, don't get me wrong... but over two hours I would take the 85mm, 135mm, or 200mm primes every time, every time.

And even if you have the zoom lens, getting another camera to put something else on so you don't have to switch lenses is going to save you a lot of fooling around on site when photographing something that's really happening. If you shoot only contrived and posed subjects, I guess this doesn't apply. But normally nature, animals, and people definitely don't wait.