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

 
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jun 29, 2013 03:44 |  #136

I used the 2x extender for outdoor soccer. The AF speed takes a big hit. If you don't know the game and read where the action is going, you will miss a lot of shots. And like someone said earlier, you lose a lot of constrast.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bones1974
Member
162 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: London
     
Jun 29, 2013 05:40 |  #137

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16069618 (external link)
I dont know how to respond to the 55-250 comment....

Well I agree with him. Those 70-200 samples look terrible and not at all indicative of what I get from mine. In fact those samples remind me of the Sigma 18-200 OS I had years ago. TDP crops are more accurate. There is no doubt the prime is a beautiful piece of kit with superb IQ, but it's not light years ahead of the zoom at anything but price and weight.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 29, 2013 06:52 |  #138
bannedPermanent ban

Bones1974 wrote in post #16075131 (external link)
Well I agree with him. Those 70-200 samples look terrible and not at all indicative of what I get from mine. In fact those samples remind me of the Sigma 18-200 OS I had years ago. TDP crops are more accurate. There is no doubt the prime is a beautiful piece of kit with superb IQ, but it's not light years ahead of the zoom at anything but price and weight.

Have you used prime? Together with the zoom?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 29, 2013 06:53 |  #139
bannedPermanent ban

cdang wrote in post #16075041 (external link)
I used the 2x extender for outdoor soccer. The AF speed takes a big hit. If you don't know the game and read where the action is going, you will miss a lot of shots. And like someone said earlier, you lose a lot of constrast.

Not sure what you guys are talking about, in terms of AF speed both the zoom and prime do pretty well with 2x Mk3. Maybe the body makes a difference?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zweihaender
Member
110 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 122
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jun 29, 2013 08:27 |  #140

RickRandhawa wrote in post #16074533 (external link)
P.S. Ever try it with a 1.4x?

I don't have a 1.4x extender. If I want 280 or 300mm f2.8, I use the 300mm f2.8. The 2x extender is for focal lenghts between 300 (->600mm) and 600mm (->1200mm).

but it's not light years ahead of the zoom at anything but price and weight.

The 200mm is noticeable better. I thought several times about selling my 70-200mm. Even at f2.8 the 2.0 delivers a much better bokeh, because its entrance pupil is larger.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jun 29, 2013 08:51 |  #141

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16075208 (external link)
Not sure what you guys are talking about, in terms of AF speed both the zoom and prime do pretty well with 2x Mk3. Maybe the body makes a difference?

Body is a 5D3. Maybe my expectations are higher than yours. I've used the 400mm F2.8 II so maybe I'm use to that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 29, 2013 10:05 |  #142
bannedPermanent ban

cdang wrote in post #16075389 (external link)
Body is a 5D3. Maybe my expectations are higher than yours. I've used the 400mm F2.8 II so maybe I'm use to that.

Obviously, $450 extender vs 10k prime there will be difference:), but to someone who occasionally needs the reach and does not primarily work with 400mm the extender is just amazing.

I also saw noticeable difference between the zoom and prime with extender. The zoom does not even become acceptable till 7.1 and stopping it down further does not improve it whereas prime is much better at 5.6 and improves all the way to 11 and sort of stays the same at that point.

At around 7.1 there is massive difference between zoom and prime, to the point I would comfortably take the prime with extender to the zoo or to a football game and get quality prints but zoom probably not so much. This is also consistent with what I read online so its not me exaggerating:)

Also, the focus is insanely fast way more than my expectations (zoom and prime together maybe just a tad more in prime's advantage), seeing the focus speed was very suprising to me. I can easily track fast moving objects (planes, helicopters etc).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bones1974
Member
162 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: London
     
Jun 29, 2013 10:57 |  #143

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16075204 (external link)
Have you used prime? Together with the zoom?

I have seen enough full res images from both lenses to know those particular samples are no good. Viewing TDP samples side by side shows both lenses to be better than those poor samples, with a slight but noticeable advantage to the prime (as expected). Its not the lenses but the samples which I'm querying. Bokeh is secondary to me so the only reason I'd spend the silly money on the prime is if I were shooting indoor sport and really needed f/2. I can definitely think of better ways to spend several thousand £'s on camera gear.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 29, 2013 12:13 |  #144
bannedPermanent ban

Bones1974 wrote in post #16075613 (external link)
I have seen enough full res images from both lenses to know those particular samples are no good. Viewing TDP samples side by side shows both lenses to be better than those poor samples, with a slight but noticeable advantage to the prime (as expected). Its not the lenses but the samples which I'm querying. Bokeh is secondary to me so the only reason I'd spend the silly money on the prime is if I were shooting indoor sport and really needed f/2. I can definitely think of better ways to spend several thousand £'s on camera gear.

You haven't really answered me, but I'll take your response as a no, in fact, I bet you don't even own the zoom or have never used it, may I ask what you are doing in this thread? No point of re-iterating what 10 other people did with quoting the TDP pictures. I have news for you, half of those comparisons don't reflect the real life copies of the lenses. My 85L II is much better than what's tested there where as my 35L is worse than what they have there.

I have tried 3 copies of the zoom, and this was the best I could get my hands on at the time. I could never disagree with a person saying "it's copy to copy variance" and "there may be better copies", but I'd say I went way overboard by trying 3 copies of a $2499 lens (back then) which is something average joe wouldn't do. SImple probabilistic math dictates that the chance of the "average joe" getting that perfect copy is extremely slim (unless Mr Joe has connections in Japan).

Remember that the pictures I posted are cropped & 100% magnification and that if I were to actually post the full jpegs, unless you viewed them at 100%, you wouldn't see much of a difference other than color/contrast difference (which is something else).

I am almost done with my review, at the moment processing pictures and writing my post which should be available hopefully today, but to give you an idea, looking at the pictures of regular objects (or anything but the res charts), one would even think the pictures taken by the prime was actually taken using a different MP camera all together. There is a lot more detail visible - you could see the texture of everything, it's almost as if the prime outresolves the zoom by a big margin.

I am also going to post the standard focus test results and you will see across the entire focal range, the zoom focus is spot on with no MA required. My zoom is also fairly sharp until 150mm or so, to the point, it was probably the sharpest lens I bought until 24-70 II came around:)

The extenders is a whole other story and that will have its own dedicated post in the review, buying this lens to use with an extender is an extremely good idea whereas the zoom is really not that useful with a 2x extender (1.4x maybe).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dylan81
Member
30 posts
Joined Jun 2012
     
Jun 29, 2013 23:31 |  #145

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16011134 (external link)
I am not dissing the 135L, but that lens is inferior to my 70-200 in every way possible other than being F/2.0. It has no IS, it doesn't focus as fast, it's no where near as sharp. There is a reason why it is the cheapest L lens (or is one of the cheapest ones) costing 1/3 of the zoom and 1/7 of the 200L.

Just because a lens is more expensive doesn't necessarily mean it's better. With your logic, the 50mm 1.2 would outperform the 1.4 (1/4th the cost) optically, but unfortunately it really doesn't. I consider spending 1k (which is roughly half the cost of the the 70-200), rather expensive for getting a single focal length and to simply discount the 135 with your exaggerated comparisons is just ridiculous. Another thing is people relying on TheDigitalPicture charts as if they were 100% reliable. If you were to compare the 24-70 II (which I own) @70mm vs the 70-200II you would find the tele lens with an advantage, but navigate over to Lens Rentals and you'll see the opposite to be true (many more copies tested). I've done thorough pixel peeping tests myself and can say they're the same other than distortion (pinching) on the 24-70. As for sharpness and your (false) and bloated "no where near as sharp"... I own the 135 and also the 70-200 II (which I rented many times through CPS before purchasing it) and can tell you that the 135 is EQUALLY as sharp if not sharper than my zoom, but much less lighter and faster if need be. The lack of IS is a bummer, but I can get sharp pics with a shutter of 1/60, which is about as slow as I typically shoot. (I'm shooting on the 5D3). I also don't get your idea that it's slower for AF. I would say their about the same and some people have argued that the prime is faster. http://www.lensrentals​.com …-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests (external link)

http://www.lensrentals​.com …1/the-great-50mm-shootout (external link)

http://www.prophotohom​e.com …5mm-f2-vs-70-200-a-2.html (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bones1974
Member
162 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: London
     
Jun 30, 2013 07:30 |  #146

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16075725 (external link)
You haven't really answered me, but I'll take your response as a no, in fact, I bet you don't even own the zoom or have never used it, may I ask what you are doing in this thread? No point of re-iterating what 10 other people did with quoting the TDP pictures. I have news for you, half of those comparisons don't reflect the real life copies of the lenses. My 85L II is much better than what's tested there where as my 35L is worse than what they have there.

I have tried 3 copies of the zoom, and this was the best I could get my hands on at the time. I could never disagree with a person saying "it's copy to copy variance" and "there may be better copies", but I'd say I went way overboard by trying 3 copies of a $2499 lens (back then) which is something average joe wouldn't do. SImple probabilistic math dictates that the chance of the "average joe" getting that perfect copy is extremely slim (unless Mr Joe has connections in Japan).

Remember that the pictures I posted are cropped & 100% magnification and that if I were to actually post the full jpegs, unless you viewed them at 100%, you wouldn't see much of a difference other than color/contrast difference (which is something else).

I am almost done with my review, at the moment processing pictures and writing my post which should be available hopefully today, but to give you an idea, looking at the pictures of regular objects (or anything but the res charts), one would even think the pictures taken by the prime was actually taken using a different MP camera all together. There is a lot more detail visible - you could see the texture of everything, it's almost as if the prime outresolves the zoom by a big margin.

I am also going to post the standard focus test results and you will see across the entire focal range, the zoom focus is spot on with no MA required. My zoom is also fairly sharp until 150mm or so, to the point, it was probably the sharpest lens I bought until 24-70 II came around:)

The extenders is a whole other story and that will have its own dedicated post in the review, buying this lens to use with an extender is an extremely good idea whereas the zoom is really not that useful with a 2x extender (1.4x maybe).

I'm pretty sure I don't need permission to comment in a thread :) In answer to your question it doesn't matter whether or not I have used a 200mm f/2. In fact I have owned a 70-200 ii for over two years and I have used a 300mm f/2.8 ii, a 400mm f/2.8 ii and a 500mm f/4 ii (and will hopefully being buying one within a couple of weeks) so I know what's sharp at 100% and my 70-200 ii has stood up very very well in that company. I needed a second copy opf the zoom before I was happy though. The 200mm f/2 IS is every bit the equal of those other big primes, but I don't see the value (YMDV) in buying a massively expensive, large and heavy 200mm lens when there is already a lighter, cheaper and more flexible (70-) 200mm lens that stands up to scrutiny wide open. As I mentioned if I am going to spend thousands then I believe a 300 ii, 400 ii or a 500 ii is a better way to empty the bank account because there no cheaper, 95% as good Canon alternative. The 200-400L is more expensive than a 600 ii so not many consider it.

I agree on the 24-70 ii. I just picked one up a few days ago and it's ridiculously good. It's so sharp wide open in the centre and mid frame that's stopping down makes nearly no difference. Its only for the corners and DOF one needs to stop down. My 35L (just sold) was very very good and very sharp wide open. TDP often test several copies of a lens and post all the samples. They did this with the 400 DO and 200-400L for example, so I trust his crops. Looking forward to your review :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 30, 2013 07:45 |  #147
bannedPermanent ban

I posted the review as promised : https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1311745.

I think its better we continue this discussion there and leave this thread.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bones1974
Member
162 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: London
     
Jun 30, 2013 08:31 |  #148

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16077533 (external link)
I posted the review as promised : https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1311745.

I think its better we continue this discussion there and leave this thread.

Great review and very comprehensive. Gear p*rn :)




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

22,497 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 lesioc
872 guests, 321 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.