Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 Apr 2011 (Saturday) 18:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 200mm L Prime vs Zoom

 
Spaniard
Senior Member
424 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Singapore
     
May 01, 2011 02:41 |  #16

You can't beat a prime in terms of sharpness.


Derrick
Burn Money Project : Canon 5DMKII//24L MKII//50L//Speedlite 580 EXII.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sir_Loin
Senior Member
Avatar
542 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 91
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Leicestershire UK
     
May 01, 2011 04:15 |  #17

Spaniard wrote in post #12325619 (external link)
You can't beat a prime in terms of sharpness.

As a rule, that comment would be correct, but the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a different beast. Wide open at f/2.8 it's astonishing for a zoom. Many real world comparisons (not test charts) between the zoom and the 135L and 200 f/2.8L show no difference at comparable apertures. Try one and you'll see. :cool:


EOS-1D MkIV, EOS 5D MkIII, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 14mm f/2.8L II, EF 24mm f/1.4L II, FD 50mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS, EF 300mm f/4.0L IS, FD 300mm f/2.8L * EOS M5, EOS M3, EF-M 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS, EF-M 22mm f/2.0, EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS * Speedlite 580EX II, Speedlite 430EX III-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,147 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 462
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
May 01, 2011 05:36 |  #18

135L beat 72-200 with f/2 :D


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ross_Curtis
Member
184 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Herts
     
May 01, 2011 05:58 |  #19

I've recently started to consider the zoom, but I know when it comes down to it. I just can't face carrying the zoom around with me so it will just sit there.
For me, the prime is a great lens, very high IQ, and being black it doesn't stand out like a big fat white lens and the biggest bonus is its size.
I often 'take it in case' which I know wouldn't be the case with the zoom.


6D | 24L II | 50MP | 85L II | 200L II | 16-35L F4 IS | Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 | Markings Q10 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Apollo.11
Goldmember
Avatar
1,845 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
     
May 01, 2011 07:34 |  #20

george m w wrote in post #12324965 (external link)
Yes, I too think the OP should get the 200 prime. But.....I think he should just ante up the money for the 2.0 ! Money well spent.

Now there is something worthy of the OP's gear list.


Some Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
george ­ m ­ w
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
     
May 01, 2011 09:06 |  #21

Apollo.11 wrote in post #12326184 (external link)
Now there is something worthy of the OP's gear list.

The 200 f/2.0 really is a special lens. I love it, it just makes the most amazing images. However, if a person is wanting to go "lightweight" or "discrete", this is certainly not the lens for you. When out in public with a lens like this, expect to get a lot of comments. Personally I don't care about the attention. I've found a good one liner that usually seems to catch people off guard and ends the conversation is to smile at them and say "go big or go home". And look back at what you were doing, and they inevitably walk away.
You will attract the attention of security guards if shooting someplace where they are present. Again, a friendly smile and a pleasant attitude with them and they generally will let you slide.
The little black 200 2.8, especially on something like a non-gripped xxD body is pretty stealthy, so I can see the appeal of it. When I had it, I just didn't use it much, because when I needed 200 and 2.8, I use my zoom.


regards, george w

"It's also obvious that people determined to solve user error with more expensive equipment will graduate to expensive user error."
Dave N.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,562 posts
Likes: 498
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
May 01, 2011 09:13 |  #22

I had the 70-200 F/2.8 IS, and also the 200 F/2.8L II.

The 200 is so much lighter, which was a godsend for event shooting.
The image quality is simply outstanding.

BUT... the biggest difference was in the bokeh. The 200 delivered beautiful and smooth quality bokeh. I thought the 70-200 bokeh was fantastic until I shot the 200 2.8L. Things that looked jagged on the zoom was smooth and beautiful on the 200 2.8L II.

I mean, isn't that one of the main reasons people buy the 50L over the 50 1.4? It's hardly fast enough to warrant the $1000 premium. It's definitely not a sharper than the 1.4. It's bigger and heavier and more annoying to tote. But it's characteristic bokeh is what makes people spend the huge premium for it.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,247 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5510
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
May 01, 2011 09:18 |  #23

george m w wrote in post #12326483 (external link)
The 200 f/2.0 really is a special lens. I love it, it just makes the most amazing images. However, if a person is wanting to go "lightweight" or "discrete", this is certainly not the lens for you. When out in public with a lens like this, expect to get a lot of comments. Personally I don't care about the attention. I've found a good one liner that usually seems to catch people off guard and ends the conversation is to smile at them and say "go big or go home". And look back at what you were doing, and they inevitably walk away.
You will attract the attention of security guards if shooting someplace where they are present. Again, a friendly smile and a pleasant attitude with them and they generally will let you slide.
The little black 200 2.8, especially on something like a non-gripped xxD body is pretty stealthy, so I can see the appeal of it. When I had it, I just didn't use it much, because when I needed 200 and 2.8, I use my zoom.

200 2L. A good reason to own Canon bodies.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
george ­ m ­ w
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
     
May 01, 2011 09:20 |  #24

BUT... the biggest difference was in the bokeh. The 200 delivered beautiful and smooth quality bokeh. I thought the 70-200 bokeh was fantastic until I shot the 200 2.8L. Things that looked jagged on the zoom was smooth and beautiful on the 200 2.8L II.

Lloyd,
.....borrow or rent a 2.0 ! It, and the 300 2.8 render the most amazing things to not only the subject, but to the BG.


regards, george w

"It's also obvious that people determined to solve user error with more expensive equipment will graduate to expensive user error."
Dave N.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,093 posts
Likes: 1293
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
May 01, 2011 09:25 as a reply to  @ picturecrazy's post |  #25

I cannot see why a person would purchase a 200mm f/2.8 prime if he or she owns a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens because:

1. No IS
2. Same f/stop
3. You can crop in camera with this lens from only a single lens to camera distance. The f/2.8L IS ii has outstanding image quality and also have very good bokeh. It is just so much more versatile than the prime.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
george ­ m ­ w
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
     
May 01, 2011 09:29 |  #26

Here's a "street shot" I grabbed the other night with the 200 at 2.0. I was meeting her downtown, and as I approached, I saw her standing there talking on the phone. I grabbed several shots before she turned and saw me.
As you can see, the BG looks so smooth and yet it's easy to see "what the BG is".
Love this lens. Love this girl and her smile !

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

regards, george w

"It's also obvious that people determined to solve user error with more expensive equipment will graduate to expensive user error."
Dave N.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,562 posts
Likes: 498
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
May 01, 2011 09:30 |  #27

george m w wrote in post #12326525 (external link)
Lloyd,
.....borrow or rent a 2.0 ! It, and the 300 2.8 render the most amazing things to not only the subject, but to the BG.

No doubt the f/2 and 300 have beautiful bokeh! For sure! But I needed something smaller and lighter! The 200 2.8 II does that.

But the 200 2.8 still has better bokeh than the zooms. It's also smaller and much lighter. To some, it's worth it. To others, it is not.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
george ­ m ­ w
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
     
May 01, 2011 09:43 |  #28

But I needed something smaller and lighter! The 200 2.8 II does that.

But the 200 2.8 still has better bokeh than the zooms. It's also smaller and much lighter. To some, it's worth it. To others, it is not.

For sure it is a compact little package that delivers outstanding images. And if a person does not need the versatility of a zoom, then it's a relative bargain.
I'm not saying you are wrong about the quality of the BG blur of it vs the zoom, but to my eye, there just wasn't much difference. I have the old non-is version of the 70-200, and I did a bunch of comparo shots with the 2.8 prime and my zoom, and spent some time looking back and forth between them. To me, the bokeh was similar enough that I didn't think most people would be able to pick which one looked "better". The color was a little most saturated and the image was maybe a little sharper from the prime. The difference in sharpness may have been down to which was AF'ing more accurate though. As for the more saturated color, the following statement may start a firestorm, but in my opinion, when comparing two lenses that are very close in that regard SOOC, to my eye, the difference can be made up in post. I think these differences were more important in the film days. With the ability to make easy tweaks in post work now, we can easily overcome these issues. Again, that's just my opinion and "my eye".

I liked the 200 2.8. I bought it at a time when I have the 70-200 f/4. I just kept finding myself needing or wanting the 2.8 version of the zoom, so I bought it, and then sold the f/4. So there I was with two lenses that would do 200 and 2.8. I basically just always seemed to grab the zoom.

Having said all that, my work is not super critical. I am a hobby shooter for the most part, so I can afford to have "less than perfect" shots. It's a good thing too ! LOL .....


regards, george w

"It's also obvious that people determined to solve user error with more expensive equipment will graduate to expensive user error."
Dave N.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,562 posts
Likes: 498
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
May 01, 2011 10:13 |  #29

I pretty much agree with what you say. In many situations, there won't be much a difference in bokeh between the zoom and the prime. But there are also situations where the difference really comes out. Mostly in "difficult bokeh" situations.

Here is a crappy shot but it illustrates the 200 2.8L's strength in that regard...

IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/beyond/200mm/IMG_3606.jpg

This is a tough bokeh situation for a lens. The trees are not perfectly smooth, but the zoom would make it much more jagged and a lot more of a distraction than the prime does. A very busy background with lots of sharp, chaotic tonal changes.

But like I said, to some people it's worth it, and to some people it's not.

-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,247 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5510
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
May 01, 2011 10:28 as a reply to  @ picturecrazy's post |  #30

Heres 200 2L OOF areas.

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_9607-1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_9609-1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_8468-1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_8455-1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_4870-1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_4366-1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_7844-1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_5979-1.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,320 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 200mm L Prime vs Zoom
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is CoryM
822 guests, 279 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.