70-200 2.8L vs 200 2.8L

I am really sweating a 70-200 zoom decision.

I am generally a prime shooter, but this range gets too much good press for me to ignore it.

I'm waffling between the 2.8 and the 2.8 IS. Probably version 1, as I am not that flush.
A few questions. I truly appreciate any insights anyone may have to offer here.

1) Would you consider the IQ on these lenses (IS aside) to be the same? Are they optically identical?

2) How do they compare the the 200 2.8L prime optically, which I have, and am familiar with. It has no IS and has not been an issue for me.

3) is the 2.8 non-IS the same lens it has always been? By that, I mean there is no version 2.

4) have you found the weight difference between them (IS vs non-IS) to be significant? I have sold lenses in the past, that went unused, as I just didn't want to carry the weight around. Specs say about 150 grams difference.

1) Then non-IS is generally reported as being sharper than the Mk I IS version. I've had the two IS versions, but never the non-IS.

3) No Mk II non-IS, and I've seen some rumors that it may be discontinued.

Can't answer the other two.

The IS and non-IS feel basically the same. When you hold them both at the same time, you can tell there's a weight difference, but not much of one. When you pick either up by themselves, you feel the heft for sure. Are the f/4 versions out of the question? They feel downright feathery compared to the f/2.8s.

I'm pretty much a low light guy. The 2.8 versions of these lenses are the ones that attract me. Even so it will be amongst my slowest lenses. I think the f4 is out of the question for me.

The following may be helpful... The Roger Cicala from Lens Rentals makes this statement regarding the comparison of the the 200mm prime and the latest version of the 70-200mm 2.8 IS... For years now, I think I’m the only person who likes this lens, and I can’t understand why. It’s sharper than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II zoom and a third of the size and cost. It’s inconspicuous and great for spontaneous photography. People who start posing when they see a big white lens never look twice at a camera with this mounted. My personal favorite use is at events that won’t allow “professional” lenses in the stands— security won’t let me in with a big white lens but never look twice at the 200mm.

nightcat wrote in post #15419440
The following may be helpful... The Roger Cicala from Lens Rentals makes this statement regarding the comparison of the the 200mm prime and the latest version of the 70-200mm 2.8 IS... For years now, I think I’m the only person who likes this lens, and I can’t understand why. It’s sharper than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II zoom and a third of the size and cost. It’s inconspicuous and great for spontaneous photography. People who start posing when they see a big white lens never look twice at a camera with this mounted. My personal favorite use is at events that won’t allow “professional” lenses in the stands— security won’t let me in with a big white lens but never look twice at the 200mm.

That is awesome - mirrors my own experience. Add a discrete TC, and you've got a pretty powerful lens, that's small.

jfb

I have the 70-200 2.8L IS version 1 and borrowed the 200/2.8L for some indoor work.

I have to say there is a marked difference when the zoom is at 200mm and at f2.8. The zoom has less contrast, sharpness is good (but not very good) and colors are a bit muted - always need more work in post processing. When comparing to the 200/2.8L, the colors are better, it's sharper and contrast is better straight out.

I haven't tried the 70-200 2.8L IS II yet.