Curious on sharpness at 200mm.

Anyone ever test sharpness on a Canon 200mm f2.8, a 70-200 f4 and the the 70-300 L at 200mm wide open?

The Digital Picture ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Comparison

Stone 13 wrote in post #15800263
The Digital Picture ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Comparison

One of my favorite sites.

Using this, it looks like the 70-200 f/4 has the edge over both the others. Which makes me happy; I've always thought my copy was very sharp. I love that lens.

This is the first time I've heard of anything besides the 200 1.8, 200 2.0 or 70-200 2.8 ii besting the 200 2.8 prime at 200mm

The reason why I was curious is I have been thinking about rearranging my lens lineup, or actually it's probably lens lust. I know I am chasing my own tail trying to get a lens lineup that will do everything depending on how much I want to carry. I have thought about selling my 70-200 f4 and getting the 70-300L or maybe the 100-400 to get extra reach. Since I have the 100mm L and the 135mm L I thought about looking for a good deal on the 200mm L and the 85mm f1.8. Since the 85, 100 L, 135L and the 200L are small I could carry a combination of 2 of those along with either the 70-300 or the 100-400 and still have some speed. Am I nuts or just bored?

I had a 200 2.8. Much like the 135L, it shines wide open. I bought it for a fast-aperture action-lens. It never let me down. I sold the 200 2.8L and 135L for a Sigma 70-200. That lens suits me better, but the L-lenses were better optically. They focused faster, too. I think that is because of the OS.

The only thing that would make me sell my 70-200 f/4L, would be if a 2.8L fell into my lap.

If I was in your shoes, I'd just get the 100-400.

edit: if you just want some extra reach in the meantime, get a 1.4X TC

id10t wrote in post #15800801
The reason why I was curious is I have been thinking about rearranging my lens lineup, or actually it's probably lens lust. I know I am chasing my own tail trying to get a lens lineup that will do everything depending on how much I want to carry. I have thought about selling my 70-200 f4 and getting the 70-300L or maybe the 100-400 to get extra reach. Since I have the 100mm L and the 135mm L I thought about looking for a good deal on the 200mm L and the 85mm f1.8. Since the 85, 100 L, 135L and the 200L are small I could carry a combination of 2 of those along with either the 70-300 or the 100-400 and still have some speed. Am I nuts or just bored?

no matter how you slice it, that's alot of glass. Have you thought about upgrading to the 70-200 2.8 IS? You'd cover the fl of the 85, 100 L, 135L and 200L with one great zoom. You'd loose 1 1/3 stop at 85mm and 1 stop at 135mm compared to your list, but you'd gain 4-stop IS throughout the range and not have to decide what to leave at home when it's time to go out and shoot. Add a 1.4 tc and you're covered all the way to 280mm at f4.

Stone 13 wrote in post #15800867
no matter how you slice it, that's alot of glass. Have you thought about upgrading to the 70-200 2.8 IS? You'd cover the fl of the 85, 100 L, 135L and 200L with one great zoom. You'd loose 1 1/3 stop at 85mm and 1 stop at 135mm compared to your list, but you'd gain 4-stop IS throughout the range and not have to decide what to leave at home when it's time to go out and shoot. Add a 1.4 tc and you're covered all the way to 280mm at f4.

What he said.

Stone 13 wrote in post #15800867
no matter how you slice it, that's alot of glass. Have you thought about upgrading to the 70-200 2.8 IS? You'd cover the fl of the 85, 100 L, 135L and 200L with one great zoom. You'd loose 1 1/3 stop at 85mm and 1 stop at 135mm compared to your list, but you'd gain 4-stop IS throughout the range and not have to decide what to leave at home when it's time to go out and shoot. Add a 1.4 tc and you're covered all the way to 280mm at f4.

If you are talking the MK II I can see that but not for the MK I. That was another option I have considered.

id10t wrote in post #15801002
If you are talking the MK II I can see that but not for the MK I. That was another option I have considered.

Yep, I was referring to the MK II