whats the difference between the 200 f2L is and the 70-200is ii

just looking around at lenses and boy did the price of the prime surprise me. So im sure there is a reason for it. However i have read into the zoom quite abit and i do realize that many people tend to exaggerate, however this zoom is no slouch. So just out of curiousity how do these 2 lenses compare at 200. Of course i was then curious about the 300 2.8l is.....and about fell over.

The 200 f/2 is amazing! LJHolloway uses it quite a bit. The background just melts away. If I had the money...... well... I need to stop daydreaming.

200 f2 IS @ f2 is sharper than the zoom @ f2.8 by a large margin across the whole frame.

Also the bokeh is smoother and creamier at comparable aperture.

Does that say enough?

those do make good selling points

kin2son wrote in post #16761874
200 f2 IS @ f2 is sharper than the zoom @ f2.8 by a large margin across the whole frame.

Also the bokeh is smoother and creamier at comparable aperture.

Does that say enough?

The 70-200mm F2.8 IS2 Is one of the sharpest lenses that canon offers.

I really don't think that you'll notice much of a difference between the 200/2L, and the 70-200mm IS2.

Not to mention that the 70-200 has (uncountably)infinitel​y more options in terms of framing...

I found that the only way I was able to extract more resolution than the 70-200mm IS2 provides was to switch to medium format digital...

I have both and the 200mm f/2 is somewhat sharper across the frame at f/2 than the f/2.8 is at f/2.8.

However, the bigger difference is the color rendition and contrast of the prime is significantly better than the zoom. This is not surprising, since the prime is 3x the price and optimized for one focal length and one aperture setting -- no one shoots the prime at f/2.8. SOOC, the raw files from the prime "pop" more than the ones from the zoom. I also suspect that once Canon releases a high megapixel FF camera (40+ megapixels), then we can see the resolution differences between the prime and the zoom more clearly.

That said, the zoom is often more convenient for me personally (events, constrained spaces, etc...), but if I have enough space and time, I'll take the prime every time.

based on comparisons on the web, sharpness difference isnt huge, but it's there, the 200F2 is sharper. Much bigger difference you will see is the bokeh.... the F2 is damn impressive.

This has some decent comparison shots:
https://www.youtube.co​m …XoABPybvH1XiyBm​UEtS1pgBWB

kin2son wrote in post #16761874
200 f2 IS @ f2 is sharper than the zoom @ f2.8 by a large margin across the whole frame.

Also the bokeh is smoother and creamier at comparable aperture.

Does that say enough?

A, more than slight, exaggeration IMHO (check the link below)*. I can't argue with bokeh though. From what I've seen the 200 f/2.0 do, it is nothing short of phenomenal; the 70-200 is no slouch either, but it is not in the same league.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

The reasons to buy the f/2.0 are: speed, bokeh. If you are looking for a sharp 200, and the zoom is attractive to you, the 70-200 f/2.8L II is awesome.
If it is bokeh that you want, I believe, there is nothing that does it better that the 200 f/2.0 (maybe the old 200 f/1.8 -- maybe).


*This test is not perfect, there is a lot that doesn't come through (e.g., bokeh). But for sharpness, it is pretty reliable.

The main difference is that the 200/2 is one stop faster. In longer lenses, one stop can be very significant when it comes to size, weight and cost.

The 200/2 is also one of Canon's best lenses overall, but the 70-200/2.8 IS II is also excellent. So realistically the biggest difference is that one stop.