Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens

[RLPhoto]

A stop can be a lot, however most of the time it is nothing, iso 100-200 is the same as 1/250-1/500 for instance, and few people are shooting portraits with the 200 f2 at 1600 iso and higher out of necessity. In situations where you really are pushing your equipments limits then obviously one stop can be the make or break point.

We are in complete agreement.

The main use case for this lens is indoor sports though, and and you're kinda out of luck there.

Again, we are in complete agreement, the lens, as a stand alone portrait lens is not, particularly, special or unique. In it's primary design roll it can be the difference between a usable, I'm getting paid image, and another night of Ramen Noodles.

If anybody was to ask my advise on buying one, I'd say do you shoot a decent amount of low light stuff where one stop is going to make it for you, and, do you get paid a reasonable living wage to do it? If the answer is yes to all that then I'd say get one, and by the way it is an awesome portrait lens. If they said no I want it primarily to take portraits with a unique look I'd say don't bother.

I would buy one solely for portraiture but at the moment the 135L is the closest Ill get.

 

[RLPhoto]

P.S. To be sure, my reason for posting was not to dampen the spirits of any 200 f2 owners, I doubt I could and wouldn't want to .

It is an awesome lens and a real blast to use. My concern, especially when a particular lens is held up as having a "unique look" is that somebody fixates on it and believes it will be a magic bullet to improve their photography, when, in truth, it rarely is.

There is no magic bullets but the 200 F/2L is a lens with a unique look, along with the 85LII, 50L, 135L, 35L, and 24LII.

 

[dmsphoto]

I own both and both are superb performers. And both have their place. For me, I carry both to almost every job and will typically put 200/2 of FF and 70-200II on crop to start but that changes. One won't replace the other and I find the primes tend to produce better looking photos (color, contrast) than zooms. That said the V2 of the 70-200 is a stellar performer, much better than V1 IMO. If I was starting out I would buy the 70-200II before anything else. Certainly a workhorse

 

[Smurf1811]

I sold my 24-70 2.8 L II, my 70-300 L an my 70-200 2.8 L IS II last week....to buy the magic 200 2.0 L. I love it ;D...but the 70-200 2.8 L IS II is also a great lens. I think i will buy a new one next year

 

[Loswr]

I sold my 24-70 2.8 L II, my 70-300 L an my 70-200 2.8 L IS II last week....to buy the magic 200 2.0 L.

That would be a little extreme, for me. But the thought did occur to me that by selling my 35L, 24-105L and 28-300L, and 100-400L, I'd be better than half way to a 300/2.8L IS II. :-X

 

[Studio1930]

I own both and for me the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is used when I need the versatility of a zoom and the guaranteed sharpness. The 200 f/2 is used when I need better tracking and twice the light such as indoor sports. They are not even close to being the same lens and I would never think of getting rid of the zoom when owning the f/2.

Here is an example of what the 200 f/2 can do in very low light. The 70-200 would have needed double the ISO to get this same shot which would have killed it (or required me to dig out the flash - no time for that). The 200 f/2 on a 1DX is as close to magic as we can get right now.

 

[Crapking]

NCVX0320 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

200/2L



NCVX0246 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

70-200 2.8L II


Luv em both like my children, can't say I love one more than the other...

 

[CarlTN]

I liked the 200 f/2 for landscape and wildlife shots. I don't feel the primary use of the lens is indoor sports. Obviously that is the primary use of this lens for sports photographers...but there are also plenty of theatre photographers who use it, plenty of portrait shooters...and plenty of nature shooters. In my opinion the main advantage of the lens is not to create shallow DOF. The main advantage is the color palette, combined with the natural yet very wide contrast, and sharpness/resolution. Shallow DOF can be captured with most any fast aperture lens.

 

[eml58]

I finally purchased the Canon 200mm f2.0. It's an amazing lens by itself and produces great photos. It's also huge and with the hood, takes up all the space in my backpack.

The 70-200mm is smaller, relatively cheap, more versatile and at 200mm f2.8, can get close to great results, but not quite the same caliber. Do you guys still manage to make use of both 70-200mm f2.8 II and the 200mm f2.0 regularly? What are your thoughts?

Yes, it's a problem isn't it, but what a great one to have, I have both Lenses, I do use the 70-200f/2.8 II more than the 200f/2, but, I man love that 200f/2, and if it's the size that worries you, solve the issue the same way I did.

Get a Bigger backpack.

 

[eml58]

I own both and for me the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is used when I need the versatility of a zoom and the guaranteed sharpness. The 200 f/2 is used when I need better tracking and twice the light such as indoor sports. They are not even close to being the same lens and I would never think of getting rid of the zoom when owning the f/2.

Here is an example of what the 200 f/2 can do in very low light. The 70-200 would have needed double the ISO to get this same shot which would have killed it (or required me to dig out the flash - no time for that). The 200 f/2 on a 1DX is as close to magic as we can get right now.

Hi Studio 1930, You pull off some amazing shots of these Dogs, absolutely Nail the focus, well done, and the dogs always look Happy, wether they're into the Pool, laying in the snow, whatever, happy Dogs.

 

[CarlTN]

Studio 1930, it looks like the dog on the left thinks it's about to get a treat. I hope it got one! I love the bokeh of the lights...and again...the color and contrast of that lens...it's just magic.

I really wish I owned a 200 f/2. Hopefully someday. I think I may post a shot I did with the one I rented in fall 2011, in a landscape photo contest...assuming it hasn't already been closed (and assuming I can still log in). I'm sure it won't go anywhere, though...especially since it's a "portrait" oriented shot. They don't seem to like those. They always prefer a wide angle shot done in one of the parks in the Rockies, or Yosemite. Mine was "only" done in Appalachia...