200/2.8 L with 20D

[jjguest]

who is using this tandem aud could show samples?
is it better than 70-200?

[CyberDyneSystems]

No samples.. but as hard as it is too beat it,.. the 200mm 2.8 prime is still better than the zoom @ 200mm

[jaypie77]

I'm using the 200/2.8 w/a 300D. Can I be of any help?

[DocFrankenstein]

Overkill IMO

Any 70-200 L would outresolve the 20D's 8 mp sensor.

[drisley]

I can say from my experience, the 135F2L shows more detail and sharpness than my old 70-200F4L, and that was even noticable on the 300D.
However, the difference may be minute on most size prints.
In addition, the autofocus on the prime will be noticable faster than on the zoom.

[phili1]

Here is a picture from my 70-200 L F4

[img}http://www.pbase.com/phili1/image/35670874/medium[img/}

[pcasciola]

I can say from my experience, the 135F2L shows more detail and sharpness than my old 70-200F4L, and that was even noticable on the 300D.
However, the difference may be minute on most size prints.
In addition, the autofocus on the prime will be noticable faster than on the zoom.

Well, that is hardly a fair comparison, because the 135F2L is far superior to the 200 f/2.8. I'd bet the 135F2L + 1.4x extender is even better than the 70-200 F/4L at 200mm as well, and I'd imaging the 200mm f/2.8 will also outpeform the 70-200 F/4L, especially wide open.

[drisley]

pscasciola.
Really? I didn't know that. I figured the 200F2.8 was about the same quality as the 135F2L.
Sorry for the confusion.

[pcasciola]

pscasciola.
Really? I didn't know that. I figured the 200F2.8 was about the same quality as the 135F2L.

I thought so too, until I saw this one review that compared the 135 F/2L, 135 F/2L + 1.4x extender and the 200 F/2.8L. I can't find it now, but I wanted to post a link to it here. Anyway, the review showed that the 135 f/2L was clearly better than the 200mm, and the 135 with the 1.4x extender was just slightly worse than the 200mm f/2.8L.

That 135mm is one great lens you have there. Safe to say it's one of the best L primes Canon has ever made.

[pmarz]

The problem with the 135 F/2L is once you buy it you will not want to use any other lens. I have the 70-200 f/4 also and I like but the 135 F/2L is in a class all by itself.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 135mm f/2 may be "better" than the 200mm f/2.8... but that does not really change the fact that the 200mm f/2.8 is "better" than the zooms :) (at 200mm)

Actually.. the 200mm is better at 200mm than the 135mm as well for obvious reasons. ;)

[phili1]

MY father can beat your father up. Wow haven't seen that in a long time.

Hey we all know that primes are great but not versatile, and at the 400mm + range cost between $3,000 to $6,000 clams.

Now I will ask a question, have you ever had an animal and bird come too close and what options did you have.

I would love to own a 400 F 2.8 prime but I think I would end up in divorce court just like if I bought the MK1Ds II.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Good points Phil1,

In this case though the prime is less expensive than the zooms.. much less if compared to the f/2.8 IS version whioch is roughly triple the cost of the prime.

As to vesatility? I difinately agree! This is why I own the zoom,. and not the prime ;)

But the question was not specific.. so it is hard to tell exactly what JJ is looking for.. I initially interpreted it to be "waht has the best image quality"... but re-reading I see that I could be mistaken regarding the question.

[cmM]

also, compared to the zooms (especially the 70-200 IS), the 200mm 2.8 is a feather.