200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II

Sort by date Sort by votes
polarhannes

polarhannes

Feb 28, 2013
95
0
5,346
39
#1
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 :)
 
#2
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
 
Upvote 0
#7
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.
 
Upvote 0
#8
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..
 
Upvote 0
#9
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
 

Attachments

  • 200-2.0-(1).jpg
    200-2.0-(1).jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 275
Upvote 0
#14
Viggo said:
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#15
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
 
Upvote 0
#17
polarhannes said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#18
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:

7219789594_29e72d524d_h.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#19
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.
 
Upvote 0
#20
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".
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AlanF
Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm
Replies
40
Views
9K
Del Paso
D
C
Cover Cap for removed tripod collar mount on 24-105 Z / 70-200 Z ?
Replies
2
Views
263
danfaz
danfaz
F
EF 400mm f/4 DO ii in 2025?
Replies
95
Views
15K
curiousMonkey
C
Richard-CN
Canon Officially Announces the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM
Replies
194
Views
18K
m4ndr4ke
m4ndr4ke
Canon Rumors
Canon Will Announce a Zoom Lens Faster Than F/2.0 in Late 2026
Replies
68
Views
4K
Z-06
Z
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu