200mm 1.8L vs 200mm f2

I would like your opinions. Yes, the 200mm f2 is newer technology and has image stabilization. I'm sure better in areas.. but is the 200mm 1.8L better bang for the buck? What about image quality between the two? hope all is well and take care. thanks!

IQ between the two... I bet they are both spectacular. I own the F2 but never used the 1.8. Personally the IS is amazing on the 200/2. I can shoot reliably at 1/15 so that can have a huge difference. I regularly shoot that lens at 1/80-1/125 and wouldn't be able to with the 1.8 version.

The 200/2 is also serviceable by canon where the 1.8 is not. Something to consider.

Talley wrote in post #18473547
IQ between the two... I bet they are both spectacular. I own the F2 but never used the 1.8. Personally the IS is amazing on the 200/2. I can shoot reliably at 1/15 so that can have a huge difference. I regularly shoot that lens at 1/80-1/125 and wouldn't be able to with the 1.8 version.

The 200/2 is also serviceable by canon where the 1.8 is not. Something to consider.

Talley, thanks man! the 1.8 looks like it's running around $3k or so. both lenses look amazing! I see they quit producing them in 04'.. thanks again.

ya I've seen the 1.8's for anywhere from about 2800-3400 while the 200/2 can be had for about 4200-4400.

James Crockett wrote in post #18473540
I would like your opinions. Yes, the 200mm f2 is newer technology and has image stabilization. I'm sure better in areas.. but is the 200mm 1.8L better bang for the buck? What about image quality between the two? hope all is well and take care. thanks!

I would argue that the IQ is close enough as makes no difference.
The f/1.8 has slightly slower AF, but really nothing to worry about unless AF speed is your absolute most important factor, but lets face it, if it is, then the f/2 is older compared to Version II is lenses, so it's slow compared to the 300mm f/2.8L IS II.

The f/2 is lighter and more compact,. with a more reasonably sized hood.

The f/1.8 has a larger better located collar and balances better on a tripod.

The IS on the F/2 is great, it is not quite as good as a modern V-II supertele, or even as good and the V-II 100-400mm etc. but still excellent.

Lastly, even if the f/2 is still too old to have all the AF bells and whistles (and speed) of the latest Gen Canons, paired with a modern Canon DSLR like the 5D4, it really is pretty amazing.

As to which is better bang, it would completely depend on the price you find for the f/1.8

I was going to sell the f/2 and keep the f/1.8 to save a little over 1K, (yes at one point I had both at the same time) but when I got the 5D4 it became evident that the pair was even better than the sum of the parts. So I kept the f/2 in the end.

James Crockett wrote in post #18473556
Talley, thanks man! the 1.8 looks like it's running around $3k or so. both lenses look amazing! I see they quit producing them in 04'.. thanks again.

I think they stopped making them earlier than that,.
By 2005 or 6 ish they were selling used (mint) for more than they did new due to demand!

Both are amazing lenses with world class sharpness, color and bokeh. I almost got the f1.8, but after giving it a lot of thought, there's just no getting around the fact that they're all getting pretty long in the tooth now, and I couldn't see having thousands tied up in a lens that at best might be really difficult and expensive to get serviced, or which might just turn into a very costly boat anchor.

So, I got the f2 (actually ended up with 2 but that's a long story) and love it. The 1.8 seems to have very slightly smoother bokeh, but the f2's is really beautiful and as good or better than almost any lens currently available.

The image stabilization of the f2 is something I use on almost every shoot and it's becoming invaluable to me. It allows me to shoot hand held in very late afternoon light at ISO 100 and get razor sharp images, something I just wouldn't be able to do with the f1.8.

Good luck.

Best bang for buck depends a lot on the bucks! Talley and Jake are right. I have both and it is a very tough call between them. The 1.8 is a UK date code - the 2.0 is a UC date code. The 2.0 was bought as a "backup" - lighter and easier to travel with when required. Don't really need the IS for the vast majority of work...For me, the 1.8 is more "ergonomic" when changing from portrait to landscape and easily shoots through a standard chain link fence. The 2.0 - you need to be aware of the sun's position on the chain link fences reflection. On long days ergonomic's wins for me with a monopod. Humm...may just let that 2.0 go and wait for a Mark II...

James Crockett wrote in post #18473540
I would like your opinions. Yes, the 200mm f2 is newer technology and has image stabilization. I'm sure better in areas.. but is the 200mm 1.8L better bang for the buck? What about image quality between the two? hope all is well and take care. thanks!

When spending $3k~4k on a used instrument like this, do you care if it can be serviced/repaired by Canon or not?

Very best,

Coincidentally, Lensrentals just did a review,

https://www.lensrental​s.com …e-canon-200mm-f1-8-l-usm/

using one of our members copies of the 200mm f/1.8 (Airbutchie) and they drew similar conclusions, in fact, leaned even more towards AF equality than I did.
(for the record, when I use the two on an older body like 1D4, they seemed almost identical AF, on the 5D4 was where the difference became a bit more noticeable.)

As lensrentals pointed out, the inability to get the 1.8 serviced and repaired if damaged is going to be a very risky decision to make, especially on something that cost few thousand dollars.

People have been saying this for years, and well it's true, but I suppose it's all about odds.

Having never had ANY Canon lens AF system break, or any part of one break, ever... I took those odds twice on this lens, as have many others, and never worried about it. In fact, I've never read about anyone needing this lens repaired on this forum either.

I suppose we can worry about car accidents (they happen a lot) and lightning strikes too. (not so much)

Or not.

I wouldn't urge anyone to take on the risk, but personally I just don't see the point of fixating on it.

I pulled trigger on 200mm F2 IS , and never regretted it ! But carrying this lens around is a pain though ߘ. Can't go wrong with IQ that makes the subject pop out Ͱߑ

Yep, you're absolutely right that the odds are good that one in good shape today would probably remain trouble free for quite a while.

But there are documented cases of these things failing.

Here's the experience of a guy who had his fail about 10 years ago:

"Just wanted to post a follow-up: I was able to get the lens repaired and it is now back in perfect working order. The repair shop who was able to do the magic trick was: Midwest Camera Repair. They were, literally, the only shop that replied with good news out of the hundred or so that I emailed asking for assistance."

https://www.photo.net …hat-can-repair-it.325671/

When I was thinking seriously about buying one, I just couldn't shake the feeling of being the one caught short in a game of musical chairs. But it is a beautiful lens, and I wish I owned one.

Stuff happens... you could trip and fall down with Lens coming down

Anything can happen....