Dilemma: 200 f2L IS or 1D-X

I guess that would depend on what you have to shoot with at 200mm currently.

For me, I would just save and wait for the 1D X. (Yes, I'll be the idiot that deviates from the norm.) I have the 7-2/ii. Though it's not the mythical 200Lis, it's not TOO far behind. It's more versatile, and easier to lug around.

As for the 1D X, I get to enjoy its quality and features for use with every... single... photo I would be taking with it.

With the 200Lis... well, unless it is the only lens I own, which ironically would be the case in order for me to own a 200Lis , I can only enjoy its magical photos when I am using it for specific purposes.

See where I'm getting at here? eh? eh?

But I think I'm going to wait awhile before I pick up a 1D X. Let the brave souls to be early adopters this time. I'll feel more comfortable ordering one after the new 61 point AF has been tried out, after the iso Eleventy-billion is squared away, and after it's shown that the 12fps can hold up.

I am rather confident that it's going to be a superb camera, and I plan to eventually get one. Of course... I might change my mind between now and March and be another early adopter sucker. That worked out okay with my 7D. But since a lot of people are putting their names/deposit in at stores already... it's unlikely I could find one for at least 6 months.

Marloon wrote in post #13287290
A couple of months ago, I was able to borrow canon's 200L IS - I fell in love with its image quality and in-your-face design. As many of you know, canon released a new 1D camera. For many, including myself, it is the answer to our prayers.

So if you had a nice chunk of change in your pocket, which would it have to be?

Hey Marloon,

it was fun to go to the forum here today. I thought it was fake one that was in the very same dilemma as myself: -)

However, I have decided me now and I will go for the glass

Lens, it will only cost more in the future while the camera will drop in price!

Lens for sure.

Marloon wrote in post #13287290
A couple of months ago, I was able to borrow canon's 200L IS - I fell in love with its image quality and in-your-face design. As many of you know, canon released a new 1D camera. For many, including myself, it is the answer to our prayers.

So if you had a nice chunk of change in your pocket, which would it have to be?

The 1DX. The lens could always be rented (no more than I'd use it).

I dont see the love for a fixed prime 200mm when you can get "similar" results with a 70-200 f/2.8IS MK2. Also the 70-200 is ultra versatile especially for wedding work. 200L is a waste of time if it takes real estate in your pelican case or dedicated additional case for limited use when you shooting a gig.

Since you dont care for your 85L that much I cant see you owning a 200L a game changer. Also on the other hand buying a 1dx wont be a massive game changer either because your portrait and typical photo shooting style you'd gain better AF points but IQ wise I DOUBT IT. Sure the CF x 2 slots is a bonus in the 1dx. Maybe banding is going to be resolved aswell but I really am curious if there will be a noticeable gain in IQ with an 18mp sensor. I dont know if 7000 is worth spending on better af, better iso and weather seal if you compare to a 2000 buck 5dmk2 (brand new) hmmmmmmmmm

Your better off buying another 5dmk2 and 70-200IS mk2 and have change in your pocket.

I want the 1dx strictly for bragging rights so I can show the world how poor I will be and place the body's name in my POTN signature haha. I'm torn in the decision of getting a 1dx since I'm in love with FF with high iso performance and accurate AF points (thats my top requirements). I gotta liquidate my $$$ vintage car parts to fund a 1dx while the 5dmk3 is achievable in my budget.

I also dont mind the 1dmk4 if it drops in price due to the 1dx. I hope I dont get a crappy hunting 1dmk4 copy in ai servo LOL!!!

devils advocate.......

AlanU wrote in post #13289608
I dont see the love for a fixed prime 200mm when you can get "similar" results with a 70-200 f/2.8IS MK2. Also the 70-200 is ultra versatile especially for wedding work. 200L is a waste of time if it takes real estate in your pelican case or dedicated additional case for limited use when you shooting a gig.

Since you dont care for your 85L that much I cant see you owning a 200L a game changer. Also on the other hand buying a 1dx wont be a massive game changer either because your portrait and typical photo shooting style you'd gain better AF points but IQ wise I DOUBT IT. Sure the CF x 2 slots is a bonus in the 1dx. Maybe banding is going to be resolved aswell but I really am curious if there will be a noticeable gain in IQ with an 18mp sensor. I dont know if 7000 is worth spending on better af, better iso and weather seal if you compare to a 2000 buck 5dmk2 (brand new) hmmmmmmmmm

Your better off buying another 5dmk2 and 70-200IS mk2 and have change in your pocket.

I want the 1dx strictly for bragging rights so I can show the world how poor I will be and place the body's name in my POTN signature haha. I'm torn in the decision of getting a 1dx since I'm in love with FF with high iso performance and accurate AF points (thats my top requirements). I gotta liquidate my $$$ vintage car parts to fund a 1dx while the 5dmk3 is achievable in my budget.

I also dont mind the 1dmk4 if it drops in price due to the 1dx. I hope I dont get a crappy hunting 1dmk4 copy in ai servo LOL!!!

devils advocate.......

The zoom isn't even close. The 200 2L is sharper at f/2 than the zoom at 2.8 has less C/A and the 200 2L is even better at 2.8. It gets twice the light at f/2 and I consistently get images I wouldn't be able to get with the zoom in low light situations. I have both the 85L and the 200 2L and the 200 2L can be a game charger.

off topic...but none of your links in your signature are working...at least for me

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13290120
The zoom isn't even close. The 200 2L is sharper at f/2 than the zoom at 2.8 has less C/A and the 200 2L is even better at 2.8. It gets twice the light at f/2 and I consistently get images I wouldn't be able to get with the zoom in low light situations. I have both the 85L and the 200 2L and the 200 2L can be a game charger.

I dont disagree that a prime is going to have amazing IQ. Low light f/2 will have faster shutter speeds.

$5500 dollars is a chunk of money. In a portrait session (not events shooting in the dark) a client will not pay you double for a portrait done with a $5500 dollar lens vs a 70-200 f/2.8IS (mk2) or even a cheaper 200 f/2.8 prime. In most cases beautiful natural light or strobe/softbox galore would light a family session/portrait etc.

I played with the 200 f/2 that Marlon borrowed from CPS. I did not feel $5500 dollar love. If anything I disliked the bulk and severe attention grabbing effect the lens has. I see no use for an extremely niche lens in my gearbag. Could I afford it...yes. I just look at the pros/cons and it would be a dust covered lens if I owned one. I'm even analyzing the cost of a 1dx as a platinum CPS member getting priority in the waiting list. I'm just being sensible in my spending habits. Heck I cant even justify buying a 135L even if its only a cheaply priced red ring prime.....mabye I'll get one just for bragging rights of owning one....lol!!!

I can see some pro's not considering either products (200L or 1dx). New gear acquisition absorbing a large % of profits isn't always cool when bills must be paid.

AlanU wrote in post #13290466
I dont disagree that a prime is going to have amazing IQ. Low light f/2 will have faster shutter speeds.

$5500 dollars is a chunk of money. In a portrait session (not events shooting in the dark) a client will not pay you double for a portrait done with a $5500 dollar lens vs a 70-200 f/2.8IS (mk2) or even a cheaper 200 f/2.8 prime. In most cases beautiful natural light or strobe/softbox galore would light a family session/portrait etc.

I played with the 200 f/2 that Marlon borrowed from CPS. I did not feel $5500 dollar love. If anything I disliked the bulk and severe attention grabbing effect the lens has. I see no use for an extremely niche lens in my gearbag. Could I afford it...yes. I just look at the pros/cons and it would be a dust covered lens if I owned one. I'm even analyzing the cost of a 1dx as a platinum CPS member getting priority in the waiting list. I'm just being sensible in my spending habits. Heck I cant even justify buying a 135L even if its only a cheaply priced red ring prime.....mabye I'll get one just for bragging rights of owning one....lol!!!

I can see some pro's not considering either products (200L or 1dx). New gear acquisition absorbing a large % of profits isn't always cool when bills must be paid.

I had one from CPS and 10 minutes after shooting with it I was on the phone to Calumet. I shoot candids at corporate events and I get shots I can't get in available light with other glass because it gives me distance and separation that I can't get with the 85L and the ability to hand hold consistently down to 1/25 of a sec is a huge advantage over the 135L. I've had mine for a couple of years now and wouldn't want to live without it. And did I mention that amazing bokeh?

I shot with blads for years so the weight doesn't bother me. In fact the lens is very well balanced.

1Dx. It's what you need and want over just what you want.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13290506
I had one from CPS and 10 minutes after shooting with it I was on the phone to Calumet. I shoot candids at corporate events and I get shots I can't get in available light because it gives me distance and separation that i can't get with the 85L and the ability to hand hold consistently down to 1/25 of a sec is a huge advantage over the 135L. I've had mine for a couple of years now and wouldn't want to live without it. ANd did I mention that amazing bokeh?

ahhh good example of niche. You NEED this type of lens for available light for your application.

I've used the 135L and I will say I am concerned with handshake when the shutter gets slow due to low light.

Bokeh is another totally different league with the 200L but on the otherhand you sometimes have to incorporate background to compliment the photo.

AlanU wrote in post #13290571
ahhh good example of niche. You NEED this type of lens for available light for your application.

I've used the 135L and I will say I am concerned with handshake when the shutter gets slow due to low light.

Bokeh is another totally different league with the 200L but on the otherhand you sometimes have to incorporate background to compliment the photo.

Thats when I reach for a different lens...

Alan, the one thing you have to know about Allen is that you'd have to pry his cold dead hands from his 200L. The man LOVES that lens (and I don't blame him one bit).

200 f2L !