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 06 Jun 2013 (Thursday) 18:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 2.8 IS II vs 200 2.0

 
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
Jun 21, 2013 22:18 |  #91

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16053053 (external link)
I know I keep bringing this thread up, and yes as I promised I will write a proper review/comparison and start a new thread, but I am having so much fun with this lens that I don't find the time to do that (yet)!:)

I just tried the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders today (Mk3) and I have to say that 2.0 is very impressive. 1.4 is obviously a lot sharper, but it just gives me 280, not so much of a difference. With 2.0, I get 400mm and the focus is much faster than I expected (I wouldn't even be able to say that I have an extender on). It tracks on AI Servo quite well and interestingly enough, I get very decent shots wide open F4 and much sharper stepping it down to F5.6. I was a bit disappointed though to find out you cannot stack the MK3 extenders, but even still, I think 2.0x is my next purchase.

That being said, here is the first comparison shot between the zoom and the prime. I am going to do a lot more of these, but this should give you guys an idea. Warning though, people with the zoom is not going to feel better after seeing this!:)

I have other shots where I stopped the prime down to 2.8 and the difference is even more obvious there.

200L @ 2.0 vs 70-200 IS II @ F2.8

The 70-200 II is widely known as the sharpest zoom lens available from any company. Every review I have ever seen has praised this lens. Looking at crops from The Digital Pcture, the IQ differences between the 70-200 II at 200mm and the 200 2.0 are subtle.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)

If you are legitimately getting results like shown above, you obviously have a defective lens and should have returned it immediately. But honestly, considering the quote I highlighted above, it seems more and more that your just trolling on these forums or at least trying to create more drama. :(


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 22, 2013 07:01 |  #92
bannedPermanent ban

bobbyz wrote in post #16053453 (external link)
Where was the focus? Would be nice to post full frame shot from either lens and then 100% crops from both from center and corners. Both lenses on a tripod with IS off, timer, you know the routine. I will also focus using LV. You zoom don't look good. I know I don't have 200L f but I did tests with 300mm f2.8 IS I and zoom was as good at that lens at f2.8.

As I said, these were hand held, I did not bother with the full setup, I will do all of that maybe after this weekend I am just enjoying the lens at the moment. The focus was on the circle in the center image the bacardi icon.

The shuttler speed was around 1/2000. I was sitting down on a chair and just took these pictures with the prime and put it down and took them again with the zoom. I have done the same thing again 2 more rounds and the pictures look similar to the ones I posted.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 22, 2013 07:10 |  #93
bannedPermanent ban

jrbdmb wrote in post #16053485 (external link)
The 70-200 II is widely known as the sharpest zoom lens available from any company. Every review I have ever seen has praised this lens. Looking at crops from The Digital Pcture, the IQ differences between the 70-200 II at 200mm and the 200 2.0 are subtle.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)

If you are legitimately getting results like shown above, you obviously have a defective lens and should have returned it immediately. But honestly, considering the quote I highlighted above, it seems more and more that your just trolling on these forums or at least trying to create more drama. :(

Thats funny, so automatically if my prime is better than the legendary zoom. One or two things has to happen. Either I have a defective zoom or I dont know how to properly use it? Well I'll tell you this much, this was the best zoom I could get my hands on last year. It focuses tack sharp across the focal length range, its extremely sharp and it is an amazing lens. But prime is that much better.

What I havent done is posting the full shots which isnt as drastically different. The shots above are full crops. When you look at full shots back to back, obviously you see a difference still but it isnt as drastic.

Also the differences between the two lenses are more apparent on surfaces with black/white dominant colors. A portrait is not as drastically different unless you zoom in. That being said the ISO chart I always use with my lenses has even more differences between them.

By the way the digital picture comparison between the zoom and prime shows, to me at least, quite significant difference. To each his own though:)

Lastly, the color palette of the prime is also something that gives it the edge over zoom. Its like 85L II but on stereoids. Its hard to explain. Looking at pictures from zoom and prime back to back you can see colors being better refined.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 22, 2013 07:23 |  #94
bannedPermanent ban

I think it comes as no surprise that the prime is sharper than the zoom, I mean it should be as it cost 3x as much :)

It is well established that OP is obsessed with sharpness, loves pixel peeping and clearly loaded. I wonder if D800E + 70-200 VRII will beat out 5D3 + 200f2 @ f2.8.

Obviously the Nikon combo cannot do f2 @ 200mm, but it's still a few grand cheaper. I think sharpness and resolution wise, the Nikon can edge out.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 22, 2013 07:29 |  #95
bannedPermanent ban

kin2son wrote in post #16054267 (external link)
I think it comes as no surprise that the prime is sharper than the zoom, I mean it should be as it cost 3x as much :)

It is well established that OP is obsessed with sharpness, loves pixel peeping and clearly loaded. I wonder if D800E + 70-200 VRII will beat out 5D3 + 200f2.

Obviously the Nikon combo cannot do f2 @ 200mm, but it's still a few grand cheaper. I think it will give the Canon a run for the money.

Can we please leave these comments outside, I am doing what was asked of me, which is posting comparison shots. Now these shots don't go well with people who own the zoom and not the prime, well tough luck. One costs 2.5x as much as the other and if you really thought people pay 2.5x more for the prime just for the extra stop, you were sadly mistaken (as we have debated this over and over and over again in this thread). You also get better colors and sharpness. The only thing I can say here is the difference between the two lenses are not as little as so many of you only with the zoom in this thread made out to be.

The zoom focuses just as fast. It focuses just as good. It's IS is just as good (in fact its IS is quieter which I really like). It's smaller and more versatile. I love it and I will never sell it. But the prime is something else. I will use this lens for special occasions and keep the zoom as the long carry around lens. This will be what 85L II was to my 24-70 II, to me, it complements the zoom. I don't see them as competing. I just don't like the comments here saying how there is no obvious difference between them and how no regular person can tell them apart. You CAN see the difference, without doing 100% cropping.

The ability to take portraits at sun down @ F2.0 hand held 1/30 is something you can only understand once you own this lens. There are things this lens is good at and there are things the zoom is good at.

Oh and bokeh is something I left out on purpose, let's not even go there. Cream cream cream, this thing has amazing bokeh:)

Of all the lenses I bought to this date, I haven't been happier - it's that good.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
Jun 22, 2013 07:37 |  #96

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16054246 (external link)
Thats funny, so automatically if my prime is better than the legendary zoom. One or two things has to happen. Either I have a defective zoom or I dont know how to properly use it? Well I'll tell you this much, this was the best zoom I could get my hands on last year. It focuses tack sharp across the focal length range, its extremely sharp and it is an amazing lens. But prime is that much better.

You are now calling this 70-200L crop "tack sharp"? IMHO a few crops of flat object would make a better comparison, as it looks like the below crop has a focus issue, not a sharpness issue (I hope).

IMAGE: http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/7479/ypey.jpg

And if in The Digital Picture Comparison I posted (70-200 II 20mm f/2.8 vs. 200 f/2.0) you see a "quite significant difference", the we'll just agree to disagree, as I see little or no difference between the two. (Now of course the 200 f/2.0 "wins" because it is a stop faster and in real life shots offers more bokeh - but your main benefit of the 200 2.0 seems to be sharpness.)

Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 22, 2013 07:47 |  #97
bannedPermanent ban

That is the top of the frame @ 200mm 2.8, probably the weakest spot for the zoom. I will post the full shots shortly, probably I should have done that earlier.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 22, 2013 07:57 |  #98
bannedPermanent ban

Prime:

http://img51.imageshac​k.us/img51/1076/9u03.j​pg (external link)

Zoom:

http://img560.imagesha​ck.us/img560/9464/msk.​jpg (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,434 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jun 22, 2013 10:49 |  #99

The top part is not where you focusing isn't it? Your focus is lower around on the "Mojito". Bottle top is behind the bottle front so is OOF.:)


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 22, 2013 10:51 |  #100
bannedPermanent ban

bobbyz wrote in post #16054633 (external link)
The top part is not where you focusing isn't it? Your focus is lower around on the "Mojito". Bottle top is behind the bottle front so is OOF.:)

I focused on the same Bacardi circle icon thing on both shots. Granted I could have missed the angle which might explain different lighting but even then you can see the color and contrast difference between prime and zoom. Anyways, I never claimed I used a tripod or this was a proper test, was just sharing my early comparison shots that's all:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,434 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jun 22, 2013 10:53 |  #101

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16054635 (external link)
I focused on the same Bacardi circle icon thing on both shots. Granted I could have missed the angle which might explain different lighting but even then you can see the color and contrast difference between prime and zoom. Anyways, I never claimed I used a tripod or this was a proper test, was just sharing my early comparison shots that's all:)

Here is my zoom.

Zoom is little less sharp at 200mm end compared to other focal lengths. Here is mine 130mm.

IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s3/v40/p110828422-5.jpg

100% crop
IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s2/v50/p874703785.jpg

I bumped aperture to f3.2 by mistake.

Here at 200mm f2.8
IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s3/v41/p719027961-5.jpg
Need to get the crop. But I was more than happy with it.

5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jun 22, 2013 11:06 |  #102

*Grabs popcorn*




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zivnuska
Goldmember
Avatar
3,650 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Likes: 599
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Wichita, Kansas
     
Jun 23, 2013 03:56 |  #103

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16054274 (external link)
The ability to take portraits at sun down @ F2.0 hand held 1/30 is something you can only understand once you own this lens.

Those portraits sound great.


www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com/blog (external link) = My Blog
Gear List
www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com (external link)

"It's not tight until you see the color of the irides."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 23, 2013 06:41 |  #104
bannedPermanent ban

I am no expert but arent there a lot of PP in those pictures including sharpening?

bobbyz wrote in post #16054643 (external link)
Here is my zoom.

Zoom is little less sharp at 200mm end compared to other focal lengths. Here is mine 130mm.
QUOTED IMAGE

100% crop
IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


I bumped aperture to f3.2 by mistake.

Here at 200mm f2.8
QUOTED IMAGE
Need to get the crop. But I was more than happy with it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zivnuska
Goldmember
Avatar
3,650 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Likes: 599
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Wichita, Kansas
     
Jun 23, 2013 07:01 |  #105

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16056694 (external link)
I am no expert but arent there a lot of PP in those pictures including sharpening?

Perhaps you could post those sundown portraits you mentioned for comparison.


www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com/blog (external link) = My Blog
Gear List
www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com (external link)

"It's not tight until you see the color of the irides."

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

23,168 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 2.8 IS II vs 200 2.0
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 sandyn1024
579 guests, 231 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.