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

[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.

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.

Please point out where I criticized him for considering the lens. I urged him to reconsider, based on my experiences, which is considerably different than criticizing. Just like everyone else here who are giving their recommendations based on their own personal experiences. Am I only supposed to reply to the thread if I agree with the norm? He asked a question, and I have responded with my own opinions, just like everyone else, and the poster should take it all into consideration and then make a choice when taking into account all the factors important to him. That's the great thing about internet forums. Someone can ask a question A or B, and I can respond with a completely different answer C that wasn't asked or considered but may actually work for the person asking.

I agree, we should all work on our technique. But I've found it's always good to give a friendly reminder that sometimes we assign more weight to gear than we should. Gear can certainly be important, but even more so, is our photographic technique. Too often people will purchase gear thinking that it will improve the photographs they take, when spending 1/10th that amount on education would vastly improve their photography in relation. That may or may not be the case, but there's nothing wrong with reminding people about the importance of composition. We all forget that from time to time. I've been guilty of it myself.

 

[polarhannes]

Thank you everybody for your great feedback and thoughts!

The images from the 300 2.8 were totally amazing - seeing as I already have the 70-200 2.8 that might also be an option which would give me more flexibility (+1.4xTC or 2xTC). Most of the time I have enough room to stand far away.

I also agree that I should spend more time learning from the pros than to invest in gear - but the lenses are just sooooo tempting and I am extremely affected by G.A.S. ;D I think photography requires continuous improvement in both aspects, technique and gear. As you move on with your technique, better tools can help you to fully utilize your newly learned skills.

I often am around fashion shows or shoot weddings for friends who can't afford a 'real' photographer or who want a 2nd shooter. Here are some examples, critique is very welcome as I know I still have a lot to learn. At the moment I am trying to improve the 'posing people' part.
The motorbike picture was taken using my Fuji X100S, the other ones using my 5D3.

 

[polarhannes]

I sometimes also shoot landscapes or animals.

 

[eml58]

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.

Umm, what ?????

Yes, that's why I bought my Canon 200f/2, my Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4, my Canon 135f/2, my Zeiss 135 f/2, the stupidly thin DOF, what else ???? Well sharpness included of course, all these Lenses have that in spades.

The 200f/2 is I think just about affordable pain, can you or can't you, if you can, that's the end of the debate, once you have it I can pretty well Guarantee you will never get rid of it, well, at least until Canon release the 200f/2 V II.

 

[eml58]

I sometimes also shoot landscapes or animals.

Love the Chimp shot, well done.

 

[Perio]

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.

Umm, what ?????

Yes, that's why I bought my Canon 200f/2, my Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4, my Canon 135f/2, my Zeiss 135 f/2, the stupidly thin DOF, what else ???? Well sharpness included of course, all these Lenses have that in spades.

The 200f/2 is I think just about affordable pain, can you or can't you, if you can, that's the end of the debate, once you have it I can pretty well Guarantee you will never get rid of it, well, at least until Canon release the 200f/2 V II.

What's your opinion about the IQ of 200 f2.0 vs. Zeiss 135 f2.0? Do you have any samples to compare the bokeh and sharpness?