Anyone has both 200/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8?

[4x4rock]

Do you find them redundant?

For the longest time, I always want a 70-200/2.8 and even lately consider the f4 too, but then I bought a 200/2.8 which is a great lens and so light to swing around on the neck.

I really like the 70-200 for the versatile range and speed.

I sold my 70-210, 100-300 and not has no zoom in this range.

I'm thinking of picking up a used Sigma non-DG but not sure if I did, how do I use the 200. Carry them both?

Or just slap me in the back of the head and tell me to sell the Tokina and get the 300/f4 IS :D.

[4x4rock]

No one owns both? ... I guess that answers my question. :)

[grego]

Depends, what you are shooting. The 200 is defintely lighter and black(as people complain of the white drawing attention).

The 70-200 is probably the best zoom out there, so its hard to pass it up in any collection if there's a need for that focal range. Not having two bodies and using primes can be tricky if you are capturing anything that is erratic.

[Billginthekeys]

if i were to get a lightwight tele prime to complement my 70-200 i would porbably get the 135. amazing sharpness. not that much shorter than 200mm, and F2. giving it its own "personality" so to speak

[Tom W]

I have the 70-200/2.8 IS, and I never considered the 200/2.8 as it seems redundent. Word is that the prime is sharper, but I'm very satisfied with the results that I get with the zoom.

[liza]

I have both the prime and the f/4 zoom. That was my answer to buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. That combination isn't as versatile as the f/2.8 zoom, but I can't complain about the image quality at all.

[Lord_Malone]

I think having both the 200 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 would be a waste of money. I say pick one or the other. I challenge any 200 f2.8 owner to show me how the prime is superior IQ wise to the 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS). BTW, not directed at you, Liza. ;) The results I've acheived with the zoom have far exceeded my expections. More than matched my 135L.

[KevC]

I love my 70-200/4L.

It's just like buying an 85, 135, and 200 at the same time. Lovely sharp too.

[liza]

I shoot with two bodies and put a teleconverter on the prime lens. Works for me when I shoot daytime field sports.

[4x4rock]

Interesting reply replies. Thanks all. I think I'll reconsider if I need to sell the prime to get the zoom.

Thanks

[mspringfield]

I have both the 70-200 IS and the 200 1.8, does that count? I would think unless you shoot with 2 bodies like Lisa then it would be a bit redundant to have the 2.8 zoom and the 2.8 prime. As Malone pointed out a 135 F2 would be much more useful.

Michael

[Billginthekeys]

*cough* i believe that was me. No offence too mr malone of course haha.

[Lord_Malone]

*cough* i believe that was me. No offence too mr malone of course haha.

Yeah. I just echoed the redundancy thing. ;)

[Dorman]

I've been thinking of getting the 200 2.8 but the nagging voice of versatility keeps going off in the back of my head. I can't afford any of the Canon 2.8's so it'll either be the 70-200 F/4 or the Sigma 70-200 2.8

[Lester Wareham]

I have the 200/2.8 for the compact light weight and don't miss the zoom for the sort of shots I do. If that were to change the choice of f4/f2.8 would depend on the intended application but I would say the f4 seems too slow at this focal length.

In this case I think there would be a case for both as I would see the two lenses for different applications. So if you still need a light compact 200mm redundancy need not be the case.

On the IQ front there does seem to be a common view that the prime is sharper but I suspect with the naked lens the IQ difference would only be observable in controlled test conditions. Where it may show up is with use with the 2X, the prime IQ copes well with the 2X - there seem to be many comments to the contry with the zoom.

[liza]

I use the prime with the 1.4x and can't see any image degradation.

[Lord_Malone]

I have the 200/2.8 for the compact light weight and don't miss the zoom for the sort of shots I do. If that were to change the choice of f4/f2.8 would depend on the intended application but I would say the f4 seems too slow at this focal length.

In this case I think there would be a case for both as I would see the two lenses for different applications. So if you still need a light compact 200mm redundancy need not be the case.

On the IQ front there does seem to be a common view that the prime is sharper but I suspect with the naked lens the IQ difference would only be observable in controlled test conditions. Where it may show up is with use with the 2X, the prime IQ copes well with the 2X - there seem to be many comments to the contry with the zoom.

I use the 2x with the zoom and see absolutely no significant degradation in IQ. The key word is significant. I'm sure there is a slight loss in IQ, but unoticeable unless you're studying 100% crops of the image, or as you said in a controlled testing environment. By all means, if one has the resources to get both prime and zoom with the same maximum aperture, redundancy becomes a non-issue. But for the vast majority of potential buyers, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to own both. I can see owning the 70-200 f/4 and the 200 f/2.8 together maybe, but there is no evidence of absolute better IQ between the prime vs. the zoom in this case. I can't speak for third party lenses, but that's been my experience having owned the 80-200 f2.8L, 135L and 70-200L IS.