advice please.

[smudge]

How does the image quality compare between the 200 2.8 prime and the 70-200 2.8 IS.

If I'm not bothered about lens changing, which I'm not, would it be worth getting the 135 f2 and the 200 f2.8 or should I just go for the 70-200 f2.8

this is for indoor concerts etc. I'm not too fussed about needing the variable part of the equation, just looking at image quality.

thanks.

[csnudelman]

I went through much the same thinking you are. I ended up deciding on the 135L and the 1.4X TC. Works for me.

[smudge]

Did you ever find out if the primes out did the 70-200 quality wise or is it an even match. I'm assuming the primes should have the edge, as they have less work to do...you know, one job well and all that.

[csnudelman]

Yes, the primes are better. However, if one feels the need for a zoom they are very good as well.

[Mohawk]

Indoors and difficult lighting, I think that the 70-200 2.8 IS would be a better choice. You can grab an extra stop or two with the IS. I know both of my 70-200s are incredibly sharp, darn near close to my primes. In fact, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference for most shots.

Mike

[smudge]

you know what...I've had a last minute turn around, up until about an hour ago I was going for a 135 f2.0 and a 200 f2.8...been reading around and managed to find a sales guy that new what he was talking about...and have decided to go for the 70-200 f2.8L IS waiting for it to come in from the other shop...pick up tomorrow at midday...can't wait. It looks huge.

The IS was the swing point...effectively with a head on or stationary object you can get an extra couple of stops which is tantamount to it being as fast as a 1.8 or there abouts.

I keep looking at the clock...if I go to bed early will it come quicker :)

[blue_max]

Whilst the IS helps you get sharp shots, it does nothing for the bokeh.

I don't think you will be disappointed thought.

Graham

[schmoelzel]

Last weekend I was at SunFest here in London and I used both primes (300) and my 70-200F2.8 zoom and while I admit that I am partial to primes because of their superior optics, the zoom came in very handy when you are trying to get the right standing position amongst a crowd. I was quickly zooming in and out to compose various frames from the same position and realized that in this application the 70-200 was perfect. Optics are also very very good and very close to most primes......(at least my copy!!). I will post some shots later from the Jazz Village; excellent music and musicians.

[SolPics]

I was at an outdoor concert in La Jolla last weekend and 70-200 L IS worked great. Just as Schmoelzel stated it was perfect for zooming on the performers, and then pulling back to 70-85 MM to get crowd shots and dancers from the same position. But I'm also lazy, it saves walking and having to change lens, and the IS is great.

[CyberDyneSystems]

If ever there was a Zoom that performed like a prime.. it's the 70-200mm's

Normally the prime wins "hands down" ...
...against the 70-200mms.. the primes just take the lead in most aspects..

Of course.. the IS is only the zoom :)
You really can't go wrong in this case.

[smudge]

I picked it up Thursday,the 70-200 2.8L IS that is and although I've only had it out the once, I can see I'm going to be very happy. I've managed to get access to a festival pit tomorrow, all day and I have permission to shoot 6 out of the 10 bands at this moment in time. Hopefully I'll be able to track down the others in the morning...although I'm expecting at least one rejection from the bigger bands. Oh well...we'll see. I'll let you all know how it turns out.