70-200 2.8 IS II vs 200 2.0

[Note]
This is the part 2 of the following thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …302865&highligh​t=overkill

I currently own 24-70 II, 70-200 II and 35L with 85L to compliment those zooms. I love all my lenses, except I'd like my pictures from the 70-200 around 150-200mm, which is where I use it the most, to look like the ones from 85L (I hope that makes sense). I'm not a professional and I know for many people even my current lens line-up is pretty amazing (for an amateur) and I'm sure I'm going to be criticized for considering a 6k lens on top of an already pretty decent zoom. That being said, if everyone can forget all of that nonsense aside and be constructive in this thread, I'd really appreciate it! I'm aware of what many will say and that's not why I'm here, I'm looking for technical/scientific/p​rofessional feedback on these two lenses.

I will be mainly using this lens in low light/outdoors (I don't think I'd use it over 35L & 85L indoors) and mainly kids/family portraits.

I went to B&H today and tested this lens out and compared it with my zoom. At 2.8, there is barely any difference between the two lenses. If I look at the pictures at 100% crop, I can see some difference, but it's not easy to say. The prime wide open is another story though. For subjects that are far away, the bokeh and the 3D effect is just amazing. It's like my 85L in stereoids. Not to mention, the lens being 2x fast makes a big difference. The pictures I shot with my zoom at ISO 12800 looks like crap compared to the ones that came out of the prime with ISO 6400. Lastly, I didn't get a chance to use the lens outdoors where it will probably produce amazing pictures with great color.

If you compare the prime to the zoom pixel by pixel at the same aperture, it's definitely not worth the extra cost. That being said, prime is meant to be used wide open, for great subject isolation. I guess the only reason to use this lens over the zoom is bokeh + 2x light.

It is very heavy yes and big (and does look ugly), but is it worth it? Part of me says yes, I really don't know

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16006875
That being said, prime is meant to be used wide open, for great subject isolation.

To be honest, I'm not sure why people keep insisting that prime is meant to be used wide open. A prime is a tool. Just like with any other lens, you adjust your aperture based on the photographic needs. Not all pictures will look good wide open. In fact, a lot of them don't. To force yourself to shoot a prime wide open at all times just handicaps you. Canon added aperture blades on lenses for a purpose. Stop down the lens when necessary. Shoot wide open when necessary.

That is all.

O..and the 200L is a great lens. 70-200L II is a great lens. You're really splitting hairs here. Sounds like you already made up your mind that the 200L is the one you want. I say, go for it.

s2kennyc wrote in post #16006970
To be honest, I'm not sure why people keep insisting that prime is meant to be used wide open. A prime is a tool. Just like with any other lens, you adjust your aperture based on the photographic needs. Not all pictures will look good wide open. In fact, a lot of them don't. To force yourself to shoot a prime wide open at all times just handicaps you. Canon added aperture blades on lenses for a purpose. Stop down the lens when necessary. Shoot wide open when necessary.

That is all.

O..and the 200L is a great lens. 70-200L II is a great lens. You're really splitting hairs here. Sounds like you already made up your mind that the 200L is the one you want. I say, go for it.

I haven't though, that's why I'm here. I wish I could test the lens out extensively outdoors, but I couldn't. At this point, I need some feedback from the owners of either lens. I did look into renting it or getting a CPS membership to get a loan, but both options cost more than $300, and that's a lot of money (with no return).

Remember though, I am not bashing the zoom. It's great, it's sharp. But it has no 2.0, it has none of that magical 3D bokeh. What I would like to know is whether the 200 F2.0 is what the 85L is to the standard FL range for the tele FLs.

70-200, smaller, cheaper and more versatile.

200 2 is an amazing lens, but it's big and mainly a specialized lens

why not consider 135L or 200L 2.8

taemo wrote in post #16007101
70-200, smaller, cheaper and more versatile.

200 2 is an amazing lens, but it's big and mainly a specialized lens

why not consider 135L or 200L 2.8

It's because I consider them inferior to the zoom (no disrespect). Neither have IS (which is very important for me) and the IQ of both of those lenses are (as far as I can tell) subpar to the zoom let alone the prime.

if cash is not an issue, i will go down the 200 f2.0 path. i have been reading intensive about the 200 f/2.0 and even the f/1.8. go to the their thread to see pictures taken by them. i bet you must already had.

i agreed with you and in fact everyone should that both the 70-200LII and 200L2.0 are great lenses.

i know you have the cash, its a L lens collection that you/we are trying to achieve and this forum is just where you need to gather the "thumbs up" to buy. Thumb up from me...

Now, time to look for a monopod to support the lens.

MFG wrote in post #16007189
if cash is not an issue, i will go down the 200 f2.0 path. i have been reading intensive about the 200 f/2.0 and even the f/1.8. go to the their thread to see pictures taken by them. i bet you must already had.

i agreed with you and in fact everyone should that both the 70-200LII and 200L2.0 are great lenses.

i know you have the cash, its a L lens collection that you/we are trying to achieve and this forum is just where you need to gather the "thumbs up" to buy. Thumb up from me...

Now, time to look for a monopod to support the lens.

It was not that heavy today when I tried it! It does look a bit scary though and I didn't even have that massive hood on.

I dont have the 200 f2 but I have the 300mm 2.8. Im not a pro. Amateur like yourself. I have some of the same lenses you own. The 70-200 may be more versatile but theres nothing like the pictures I get with the 300. In my opinion they are in a way different league. The 200 is heavy, big and ugly but its such a killer lens. s2kennyc mention he doesn't know why people insist on using them wide open. BECAUSE YOU CAN!!! HAHAHA!
Seriously though, who cares if people criticize you about paying 6k! People do a lot silly things with money like paying for camera gear with credit at high interest rates. They end up paying crazy amount of money each year in interests alone! Buying a lens that holds decent value is a better option. The ear to ear smile, the pictures/creativity are worth it.
The 200mm is a beauty. Im sure you wont regret it. The colors, clarity, bokeh..everything is just amazing.

If I had 200mm f2, I will use it 99.99% of the time at f2. Why not 100% coz that few times I would have bumped aperture by mistake. My 135L was always at f2. My 70-200mm f2.8 II at f2.8. This is what I shoot. I don't shoot groups. So don't need those slower apertures.

BTW - To me 70-200mm f2.8 IS II looked just as good at 300mm f2.8 IS I. That speaks highly for the zoom. It is that good. Newer 300/400mm f2.8 IS II will be better. 200mm f2 is mostly for f2 but might get updated with newer optics/IS.

I had the 200mm 2.0 on loan from Canon CPS for a week last fall. It's an amazing piece of glass but it is a load to deal with size-wise for the uses you listed (kids & family portraits). Personally, I'd much rather use my 135mm 2.0 for those situations, much lighter and less intimidating looking, and still shoots at 2.0 with gorgeous bokeh.

Thing is the difference between 70-200II and 200f2 @ f2.8 is negligible, and if one buys the prime at 3x the cost, it's extremely hard to justify the extra weight and cost if you aren't shooting it wide open like always

i have to admit that the space needed for 200mm is pretty long. With the 70-200II, i often try to shoot at 200mm if possible but then often, i just can't. Hence, i understand that the prime FL of 200 might not be applicable all the time. When i take full body length of my bridal portrait, the whole feet needs to be included and there must be room space above the head and below the legs -> if that makes sense.
Of course, when i can zoom out at 200mm, how i wish i have the 200 at f/2.0 to make that bit of differences. again, its style dependent as well. since you have the 70-200, check the meta data of the photos you took with the 70-200, do you take lots at 200? For me, i tried and i think i did when i could.
Good discussion on both side of the fences, i agree that L retains most of it's value. once i can earn more from photography, i will go buy a external portable flash unit... then the 200 f/2.0.

enjoy.

I am also an amateur, so this comes from the same perspective that you are at.

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 200 1.8. I use them for very different things. The 200 1.8 is excellent for indoor sports, plays/musicals where they don't allow flashes, and for the dreamy ultra narrow depth of field with tack sharp in focus detail (akin to the 85 1.2 II). I use my 70-200 when my subjects are going to be changing distances rapidly (all the typical benefits of a zoom).

They are both sharp wide open, handholdable (I bet the 200 F2 IS is even better at than the 1.8), magnificent lenses. Can't go wrong either way, but it has to suit what you are shooting for.

Because I love the razor thin DOF, I tend to take the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, and my 200 1.8 when going out for portraits with my kids. When I review my EXIFs on the primes, most are wide open to 1 stop slower. If they are doing something active, like soccer, or running around the playground, I'll use the 70-200. I took the 200 1.8 to the playground about 2 months ago and had 3 or 4 people come up to me and say that they didn't feel comfortable with me having a lens like that around their kids. Since I could care less what other people think of me, I just kept doing my thing...public park and all. Just a side note on big lenses in public.

Whichever you choose, you'll have great equipment.

(There's a 200 1.8 in the for sale section right now...in case you are interested... and it's custom painted black, so not as obtrusive as the giant white).

I have both, I use the 200L about 100000X more than I use the zoom

Check this test out: