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

[polarhannes]

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!

 

[mackguyver]

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.

 

[Invertalon]

^ 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]

^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!

Nice examples! The bokeh on the lizard shot is insane!

 

[Viggo]

^ 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)

 

[Perio]

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]

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

 

[jasonsim]

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.

 

[eml58]

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.

 

[Perio]

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?

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it

 

[mackguyver]

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.

Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it

I'm afraid to touch one

 

[Sabaki]

^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!

Crazy spectacular!

You've just put the 300 f/2.8ii very high on my want list!

 

[SoullessPolack]

You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???" They claim those lenses are great for background separation. You know what else is? ANY lens and a knowledge of composition. I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens. You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end. But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider. You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things. Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more.

Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.

 

[deleteme]

You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???" They claim those lenses are great for background separation. You know what else is? ANY lens and a knowledge of composition. I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens. You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end. But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider. You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things. Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more.

Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.

Thank you. Excellent post. Way too much time spent looking for the "magic bullet" that will make fantasy photos when the truth is that hard work and practice is what gets it done.

 

[Viggo]

You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???" They claim those lenses are great for background separation. You know what else is? ANY lens and a knowledge of composition. I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens. You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end. But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider. You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things. Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more.

Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.

My head hurts from reading that... It's different what you and I want from our photography, so don't tell anyone what they need or that a 70-200 f4 gives you what you want if you want a 200 f2 just by reading a little...

 

[Dylan777]

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.

Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it

I'm afraid to touch one

@ sagittariansrock - Thank you for the encouragement

@ mackguyver - I know your feeling. I'm testing out my 400 + 1.4x and 2x TC right now. Hope it works as I planned, so I can cross the 600mm off my wanted list. If that is the case, there should be enough room for 200mm f2. Until then, I'm ain't-gonna touch that BEAST ;D

My rental 600mm should arrived next week. I want to see how 840mm and 1200mm IQ looks with 1dx.

 

[Dantana]

You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???" They claim those lenses are great for background separation. You know what else is? ANY lens and a knowledge of composition. I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens. You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end. But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider. You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things. Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more.

Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.

Hmmm.

Interesting post.

I think that it's helpful to remember that these are all tools, the bodies, lenses, lighting, etc. We all choose different tools based on what we are looking for and how we work.

You have chosen the 70-200 4 as your tool of choice, and apparently it does what you want it to. I don't own it, but from what I've heard it's a great lens. It is, however, a very different tool than the 200 2.

I don't currently have the cash for tools like the 200 2 (or even the 70-200 2.8 IS II), but I did have the chance to pick up the 200 2.8 II for a good price used last year and I have been happy having that as a tool in my kit. Would I say it's better than the 200 2? No. It's a different tool. It's much smaller and less expensive and I've gotten some great images out of it. I will never be able to open it up to 2.0 though, and it will never have that same look. It is a lot easier to fit in my pack on a hike though, which is important to me. Maybe that's not important to the OP. Maybe the cost is no issue. For me the cost (and size) of that lens don't justify a place for that tool in my toolbox. If I had the means, I'd love to have one though.

I think it's odd to criticize someone for asking about a particular tool and then telling them they need to learn more about composition. These are separate things. We should all work on out technique. That should be a given.

 

[jasonsim]

Hi Dylan,

Here is the 600mm II + 2x III + 1Dx quality. I think it is very very good:

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.

Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it

I'm afraid to touch one

@ sagittariansrock - Thank you for the encouragement

@ mackguyver - I know your feeling. I'm testing out my 400 + 1.4x and 2x TC right now. Hope it works as I planned, so I can cross the 600mm off my wanted list. If that is the case, there should be enough room for 200mm f2. Until then, I'm ain't-gonna touch that BEAST ;D

My rental 600mm should arrived next week. I want to see how 840mm and 1200mm IQ looks with 1dx.

 

[Dylan777]

Hi Dylan,

Here is the 600mm II + 2x III + 1Dx quality. I think it is very very good:

@ sagittariansrock - Thank you for the encouragement

@ mackguyver - I know your feeling. I'm testing out my 400 + 1.4x and 2x TC right now. Hope it works as I planned, so I can cross the 600mm off my wanted list. If that is the case, there should be enough room for 200mm f2. Until then, I'm ain't-gonna touch that BEAST ;D

My rental 600mm should arrived next week. I want to see how 840mm and 1200mm IQ looks with 1dx.

Thank you Jason.

Do you remember the shooting info of these photos? aperture? ISO? an what mode you were shooting?