James Crockett wrote in post #18473540
I would like your opinions. Yes, the 200mm f2 is newer technology and has image stabilization. I'm sure better in areas.. but is the 200mm 1.8L better bang for the buck? What about image quality between the two? hope all is well and take care. thanks!
I would argue that the IQ is close enough as makes no difference.
The f/1.8 has slightly slower AF, but really nothing to worry about unless AF speed is your absolute most important factor, but lets face it, if it is, then the f/2 is older compared to Version II is lenses, so it's slow compared to the 300mm f/2.8L IS II.
The f/2 is lighter and more compact,. with a more reasonably sized hood.
The f/1.8 has a larger better located collar and balances better on a tripod.
The IS on the F/2 is great, it is not quite as good as a modern V-II supertele, or even as good and the V-II 100-400mm etc. but still excellent.
Lastly, even if the f/2 is still too old to have all the AF bells and whistles (and speed) of the latest Gen Canons, paired with a modern Canon DSLR like the 5D4, it really is pretty amazing.
As to which is better bang, it would completely depend on the price you find for the f/1.8
I was going to sell the f/2 and keep the f/1.8 to save a little over 1K, (yes at one point I had both at the same time) but when I got the 5D4 it became evident that the pair was even better than the sum of the parts. So I kept the f/2 in the end.