Is 200L/2 totally inferior to the 70-200/4 ?

FretNoMore wrote in post #7092434
Let's start a petition to get a lot of people to not recommend the 200/2. Maybe its reputation will become so bad that I then can pick one up at a silly low price.

Fellows, don't you think that the 200/2 IS is totally inferior to the 70-200/4 IS ?
If you don't, then think twice:

- As hard as you try, it will not zoom. I've tried different copies and all had this defect. Blame Canon QC.
- Has inferior f number 2 vs 4, so shots are less sharp overall wide-open.
- Three times the weight. Unbearable after the usual 8 hours of handheld duck-shooting.
- Too big. You may harm people at indoor parties, let alone it will obstruct flash coverage of your Rebel.
- MFD sucks. Forget macro coin shots.
- The IS of the 200/2 won't stop subject motion, while many 70-200/4 users will say their IS will.
- Just check the forums here. A billion of POTN users bought the 70-200/4 instead of the 200/2. They can't be all wrong !

Now this should be enough for Canon to swap the prices of the 200/2 and the 70-200/4... it's just a matter of time...

Not sure what's the point of this thread... but OK

you sir have no clue what your talking about.

do us all a favor and lock your own thread.

R U kidding me....I have the 70-200/2.8 IS and I am dying to get the 200L/ 2.0....

In fact it is the next lens I am buying ......I don't think it is inferior at all, it is one of the sharpest lenses that Canon has.....

How about he 200 2L is a bargain because its two stops faster and sharper and has less CA than the 70- 200...

Hey lets keep this going and send it to Canon
Maybe it could drive down the price on this lens

GetOnMyLevel wrote in post #7093200
you sir have no clue what your talking about.

do us all a favor and lock your own thread.

I agree, lets get onto something more useful......

midnight_rider wrote in post #7093237
Hey lets keep this going and send it to Canon
Maybe it could drive down the price on this lens

LOL, they only like to raise prices.....

The lack of CA is AMAZING on the 200L!
Just in a different league than the 70-200mm lenses, period!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #7093207
How about he 200 2L is a bargain because its two stops faster and sharper and has less CA than the 70- 200...

The most logical explanation is he mixed up the lenses. Other than that, the only reason for the F4 is size and price.

I think the OP was just joking around.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #7093286
The most logical explanation is he mixed up the lenses. Other than that, the only reason for the F4 is size and price.

nicksan wrote in post #7093269
The lack of CA is AMAZING on the 200L!
Just in a different league than the 70-200mm lenses, period!

Shhhhhhhhh ! Man, you are spoiling it all !

ok so I "Think" what the op meant was the 200L f2.8 II(not the 200L f2) and the 70-200 f4!

MinhThien wrote in post #7093304
ok so I "Think" what the op meant was the 200L f2.8 II(not the 200L f2) and the 70-200 f4!

Maybe, but I think he is toying around more than anything...

And he's grinning like a "Cheshire Cat"

BrianMC wrote in post #7093254
LOL, they only like to raise prices.....

Yeah they actually just raised them too. the brick I just bought went up 80bucks the night before I pulled the trigger.