whats the difference b/t the 200mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8

ok the question is in the title. Ive looked but havent seen anyone ask this. thanks for the replys

One is a prime and one is a zoom

I have both, the prime is clearly sharper than the zoom@200mm and much smaller, lighter and blacker

Optionally you gan get IS on the 70-200 lenses but not on the 200/2.8 prime. You have to step up to the hefty 200/2.0 for that.

here's a comparison for image quality:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

I have the 200 2.8L and it's one of my favourite lenses.

Advantages compared to the 70-200 2.8:
- Cheaper
- Lighter
- Sharper
- Better AF
- Better bokeh
- Black (less conspicuous)

Disadvantages (I don't really consider either of these disadvantages):
- No zoom
- Potentially no IS

very obvious differences...

-one is black while the other is white(?)

-one is smaller than the other

-one is lighter than the other

-one is cheaper than the other

-one has 2 rubber rings to twist while the other, only one

-70-199mm

I was saving for the 70-200 until Hoff mentioned the 200 2.8. For the price it's an amazing piece of glass.

I used the 200 f/2.8 for about a half a year while I saved up for my 70-200 f/2.8L. Very sharp and very good photos; however, no zoom which makes certain events difficult to shoot.

The sharpness advantage for the prime disappears after 2.8.