200mm f2 vs f2.8

I was talking with a friend the other day and we came to become somewhat puzzled by the new 200mm f/2 in regards to the price and purpose. Is there a situation where one would find f/2 to be necessary over the 2.8 (not to mention at the expense of about 10x the price)? Is the bokeh significantly different?

Well the main advantage is that you get double the shutter speed going from 2.8 to 2.0...like if you're @ 1/200 @ f2.8 then you'll get 1/400 @ f2. And I'm sure the bokeh is creamier as well.

Indoor sports photography where f/2.8 simply doesn't cut it much of the time.

Are we talking about vs. the 200 f/2.8L or 70-200 f/2.8L IS?

Regardless, its not 10x.

As for benefits: whether it's the prime or zoom we're comparing this lens to, f/2 is an entire stop faster. With this lens targeting professionals, obviously many would want the best that they can get and so they'll gladly pay up for it.

Vs. the f/2.8 prime, the f/2 also has IS. Also, I'd expect the 200 f/2 to be a better performer.. probably better than the f/2.8L at f/2.8. Time will tell.

Vs. the 70-200L, well the IQ will obviously be better.

These types of arguments are analogous to similar themes like 300/2.8 vs. 4. A full-stop is nothing to scoff at and for some (especially professionals who need to deliver), its worth the extra money.

Good points... Touche. Now I have a rebuttal at the water cooler.

Cadwell wrote in post #4805901
Indoor sports photography where f/2.8 simply doesn't cut it much of the time.

Since I have no experience with indoor sports photography whatsoever I take your word for it. Just one thing makes me curious: 20 years ago people bought the 300 F/2.8 for huge sums of money because anything slower "didn't cut it". Back then ISO100 film was used for general purpose photography and ISO50 or slower film for decent work.

Now it's 2008, we got digital cameras creating very decent photos at ISO1600 and above, and F/2.8 suddenly "doesn't cut it" anymore . Did I miss something or have we gotten just a little spoiled here. Or is it that basically anything that's not the best (and most expensive) available option "doesn't cut it" ?


One things which hasn't been mentioned here: The F/2 200 has IS, so the minimum shutter speed is not doubled, but in many cases increased up to 32 fold (if the marketing material is correct). 32 fold is definitely a huge difference IMHO ....

Rudeofus wrote in post #4805968
Since I have no experience with indoor sports photography whatsoever I take your word for it. Just one thing makes me curious: 20 years ago people bought the 300 F/2.8 for huge sums of money because anything slower "didn't cut it". Back then ISO100 film was used for general purpose photography and ISO50 or slower film for decent work.

Now it's 2008, we got digital cameras creating very decent photos at ISO1600 and above, and F/2.8 suddenly "doesn't cut it" anymore . Did I miss something or have we gotten just a little spoiled here. Or is it that basically anything that's not the best (and most expensive) available option "doesn't cut it" ?


One things which hasn't been mentioned here: The F/2 200 has IS, so the minimum shutter speed is not doubled, but in many cases increased up to 32 fold (if the marketing material is correct). 32 fold is definitely a huge difference IMHO ....

Basically it boils down to indoor sports lighting almost always sucks at any event below the NFL in budget and people don't want the nasty flash look like they got 20 years ago. I doubt you'll see it on the sidelines of many NFL games, but it'll be handy for sure at high school and college sporting events as well as the Olympics and such.

People are quick to say, "back in the day we didn't have this new-fangled AF or high ISO or yadda yadda yadda and we got along just great" but they never acknowledge how crappy most images were.

You're also wrong about shutter speed increasing 32 fold. You obviously don't know what IS does. f/2.8 to f/2 only doubles shutter speed for the same ISO. Nothing more, nothing less. But it could be the difference between a big blur or a sharp ball. Sometimes, that's pretty damned valuable.

Rudeofus wrote in post #4805968
One things which hasn't been mentioned here: The F/2 200 has IS, so the minimum shutter speed is not doubled, but in many cases increased up to 32 fold (if the marketing material is correct). 32 fold is definitely a huge difference IMHO ....

Yes, but what you're missing is the fact that you need the faster shutter speed to freeze action for low light situations where there is movement.

Rudeofus wrote in post #4805968
One things which hasn't been mentioned here: The F/2 200 has IS

Collin85 wrote in post #4805908
Vs. the f/2.8 prime, the f/2 also has IS.

.

Rudeofus wrote in post #4805968
One things which hasn't been mentioned here: The F/2 200 has IS, so the minimum shutter speed is not doubled, but in many cases increased up to 32 fold (if the marketing material is correct). 32 fold is definitely a huge difference IMHO ....

4-stop IS is 2^4 = 16 fold, not 32.

cdifoto wrote in post #4805989
You're also wrong about shutter speed increasing 32 fold. You obviously don't know what IS does. f/2.8 to f/2 only doubles shutter speed for the same ISO. Nothing more, nothing less. But it could be the difference between a big blur or a sharp ball. Sometimes, that's pretty damned valuable.

Assume a light situation which allows me to work with F/2.8 and 1/200 s shutter time, that's the limit for the 200 F/2.8. Now if I used the 200 F/2 fully open, I'd gain 1 stop. Add to that the IS (supposedly 4 stops), I end up with 5 stops overall. That's where my factor of 32 comes from. Pretty unbelievable! If the marketing brochures don't lie, you can work at 1/16 s with this lens!

However, not every situation will let you take advantage of this factor 32: If you takes pictures of sports activities, IS won't be much help. If you need DOF, F/2 is not an option.

Rudeofus wrote in post #4806038
Assume a light situation which allows me to work with F/2.8 and 1/200 s shutter time, that's the limit for the 200 F/2.8. Now if I used the 200 F/2 fully open, I'd gain 1 stop. Add to that the IS (supposedly 4 stops), I end up with 5 stops overall. That's where my factor of 32 comes from. Pretty unbelievable! If the marketing brochures don't lie, you can work at 1/16 s with this lens!

However, not every situation will let you take advantage of this factor 32: If you takes pictures of sports activities, IS won't be much help. If you need DOF, F/2 is not an option.

I think it's how you worded it. You said 'minimum shutter speed increases.. 32 fold', when you probably meant decrease for the minimum allowable shutter speed.

Also, some of the posters here are posting strictly with sports photography in mind, so how extreme the shutter speeds can be pushed in the low ends thanks to IS isn't so relevant.

The shutter speed is covered but what about AF speed. AF needs as much light to work as possible. The better the light gathering capability the easier it is to AF on quick moving subjects. These lenses are used for gymnastics, tennis and other sports where flash is not allowed. Concert photographers find it useful in lighting changes.

Nothing is more frustrating than situations where the AF won't lock

Collin85 wrote in post #4806057
I think it's how you worded it. You said 'minimum shutter speed increases.. 32 fold', when you probably meant decrease for the minimum allowable shutter speed.

Yep, you're correct. I wrote it in a very inaccurate and possibly confusing way, since the extra F stop doesn't buy you longer shutter times either. You did indeed point out the IS, but didn't explicitly mention that it has much more potential effect on light requirements than the dreaded extra F stop.

Let phrase it this way: With the F2 IS you can take pictures hand held of non-moving objects with 1/32 of the light that you would need for the F/2.8 non-IS.

From what I read here (and Canon's pricing seems to support this) I get the impression that the F/2 is a lens strictly for professionals in certain fields where things are constantly pushed to the limit. The rest of us (including myself) are relegated to drooling over it .

Rudeofus wrote in post #4806219
From what I read here (and Canon's pricing seems to support this) I get the impression that the F/2 is a lens strictly for professionals in certain fields where things are constantly pushed to the limit. The rest of us (including myself) are relegated to drooling over it .

No, you're quite incorrect. Anyone with the money required for purchase can own one, whether that person actually needs it or not.