# Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens



## TM (Mar 20, 2013)

I finally purchased the Canon 200mm f2.0. It's an amazing lens by itself and produces great photos. It's also huge and with the hood, takes up all the space in my backpack. 

The 70-200mm is smaller, relatively cheap, more versatile and at 200mm f2.8, can get close to great results, but not quite the same caliber. Do you guys still manage to make use of both 70-200mm f2.8 II and the 200mm f2.0 regularly? What are your thoughts?


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 20, 2013)

I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?


----------



## sanj (Mar 20, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?



No no no nonono. 200 f2 is specialized lens for low light/super bokeh. 70-200 is a versatile, multi purpose lens broadly speaking. 
Yes, the 200 is for specialty uses and nothing comes close...


----------



## rdalrt (Mar 20, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?



Indoor sports for me, where 2.8 just won't cut it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

Portraits and sports are the top uses for the 200L2. I'd get it over a 300 f/2.8 because its a more useful focal length for me. It's a whole stop faster than the 70-200 and a stop is a lot! That's like from 1/250 to 1/500th.


----------



## Crapking (Mar 20, 2013)

I use both concurrently (with 2 bodies obviously) giving me the flexibility and added focal range of the zoom and the extra stop / bokeh when I need/want it. Also, with the 1.4 TC, I still get 280/2.8 when I must position myself further from my usual courtside action.
While slightly larger than the 70-200/2.8 II, the 200/2 still fits (unattached) in my ThinkTank Digital Holster, giving me the added flexibility of having 3 lenses (the third being the 135/2) on my 2 bodies and a dual Black Rapid strap system. 
I simply prefer/require the extra stop in most arenas.  
The fast focus ring and AF stop buttons, along with the blazing fast AF are nice extras 
I love my 70-200 (like my mother) but LOVE my 200 (like my WIFE). 

As for portraits, it is a bit bulky for street / event shooting, but for sessions on location where I can control distance to subject, it is an excellent choice.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 20, 2013)

The 200 f/2L is very useful for sports where you need f/2 to f/2.5 at 1/500s. It is also a tremendous portrait lens if you like that unique focal length for that. It is super sharp across all apertures, including f/2. There's no distortion, whereas the 70-200 does have some at 200.


----------



## PavelR (Mar 20, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?


The reason you do not understand this lens is: "you do not have one".
200/2 @ 2.8 is far better than [email protected]/2.8, thus I use it (200/2) anytime I do not need flexibility of the zoom (mostly outdoors) and/or need push ISO above 800 (or get rid of using a flash), than I switch to 200/2 and use it @ 2-2.8 to get better shutter speed.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 20, 2013)

When I first purchased the lens I did a lot of work with it for indoor volleyball this past fall on a monopod. The advantage was that I could open up to f/2.2 (which I badly needed in that dang gym) and the sharpness at f/2.2 is probably sharper yet than the 135L at f/2.2, and that is saying a lot!


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 20, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?



As LRphoto mentioned... it's one f-stop bigger than f2.8 meaning x2 amount of light hitting the sensor. The sport shooters would gain one full stop in shutter speed exp.1/500 to 1/1000.

If IQ of this lens is same as 70-200 , Canon wouldn't put HUGE THE PRICE tag on it.

*Off Topic*: just like many people still believe the IQ of new Tammy 24-70 is same or better than Canon 24-70 f2.8 II :'(


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 20, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> FunPhotons said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?
> ...



Sorry I forgot to mention that too. No, the IQ of the two lenses aren't quite the same. The 200 is actually a bit sharper, and the main thing for me as a sports shooter, is NO distortion. The 70-200L gives some distortion at the long end and I've battled this throughout the winter.

The gain for the zoom is the flexibility. This has to be Canon's best IQ zoom lens, or had to be until the 24-70L II became available. The 70-200L defeats a lot of the prime lenses in that range, however, the 200 f/2L is not one of those.


----------



## No Mayo (Mar 21, 2013)

I own and use both lenses. Full disclosure; I also have the 85/1.2, 100/2.8L, and the 135/2. All of these focal lengths are represented by the (totally awesome) 70-200 2.8II zoom as well. This might mean that I am addicted to glass (guilty), or that I try to utilize the advantages that each lens has over the other (hopefully also true). Let's face it (I did when I gulped and clicked the purchase button for the 200/2) this lens is expensive and it is much bigger/heavier than the zoom. If you are needing to dismiss the zoom as inferior in order to justify the purchase you are really missing the point. This lens is not for everyone, but it is a killer lens! Some may say, hey I will just shoot at 200 ISO instead of 100. The problem is when you don't get to choose what the light level is. What about when the groom steps out of the center spot of the altar while you are shooting at 1/125, 2.8, 400 (from the mandatory balcony at the rear of the sanctuary) and walks to the side of the chancel, sits down at the piano which makes him effectively disappear (much like the predator). After my eyes adjusted to his black suit sitting at a black piano in a void of illumination I was changing my settings to 1/80, f2, and 12,800 ISO! I suppose that the zoom would have given me 25,600 but I was already horrified with going from 400 to 12,800. I could have used my 135 or 85, but that would put him much further away and he would have been in stark contrast to the comparative alien abduction that his bride and pastor were experiencing. Being able to Isolate him in the frame was critical. Getting the lowest ISO possible was also critical. From where I was, nothing in the Canon family was as well equipped to get the shot than the 200/2. Now I also got some great shots in the feature lighting of the altar at much more ideal settings. This also gave me a somewhat sharper image than the shots taken with the 70-200. I was also able to isolate the couple a little more at 2.0 than 2.8. But at least as important was the ability to shoot with the zoom in order to frame the bridesmaids and the groomsmen respectively. I do not view these lenses as competing, but as 2 separate tools to help a photographer get the shot. Any sports action shots when you are squeezing the shutter speed and ISO levels or just trying to isolate your subject will be incredibly well served with this lens. If you are a pro and need what this lens gives you, you probably already own it. If you are trying to justify it, rent it and you might just save yourself 6K and a backache. I use the zoom for more shots, but the 200/2 is a lens that will continue to perform for me when I need that reach and max speed. The zoom is a better value. An automobile is a better value than an airplane. I would bet that anyone that owns a plane also owns an automobile. The reverse is much less likely. This is a great example of a lens that for most shooters is better to rent than own, but one of the saddest days of your life just may be the day you return this one at the end of your rental agreement.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 21, 2013)

And don't forget you can stack two 2x teleconverters and get an 800mm f/8 that will still autofocus on a 1D-series (I'd like to see how usable that would be though, any of you lucky-suckers who own one wanna test?).


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 23, 2013)

sanj said:


> FunPhotons said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have the 200/2 (so why am I replying?  ) but I don't understand this lens. The 70-200 is nearly as good, more versatile, smaller, lighter and cheaper. Other than for a few specialty uses why would you buy or use the 200? I think even the review here recently focused more on the use case of it being a good portrait lens. What else would you use the lens for?
> ...



Congratulations on your purchase! Although I don't own 70-200 2.8, I'd agree with this response. If I expect my subject to move or have limited space, I'd probably get the 70-200 which is probably close to 200 2.0 in terms of the sharpness and quality. But if you're photographing a model outdoors and like the smooth bokeh and *exceptional* sharpness, I'd use 200 2.0. I really like the way the bokeh looks at f2.0 vs. 2.8. Hope it helps!


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 23, 2013)

No one seems to have mentioned the unbelievable color palette the 200 f/2 produces (if you did, I missed it). You will never see color better from any other lens on earth, than with that one. Even the 85mm f/1.2 looks like watercolor, compared to the old master oil via the 200 f/2. The Nikon 200 f/2 might be similar, but I don't care about it, haha. I suppose there might be a Leica lens that could approach the Canon 200 f/2's color rendition, but I have no personal experience with them...and it certainly would be shorter than 100mm focal length. So at 200mm, there just is nothing else. You own a zoom, for the zoom...which certainly can be a vital usage. If you need a lighter-weight lens, that's valid too.


----------



## WillThompson (Mar 23, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> And don't forget you can stack two 2x teleconverters and get an 800mm f/8 that will still autofocus on a 1D-series (I'd like to see how usable that would be though, any of you lucky-suckers who own one wanna test?).



No it will not. At f5.6 it starts to hunt (1.4 & 2X)! P.S. due to over shooting the correct focus position!

The 200 f2 IS has 5 stops of IS that no one seems to notice (as stated in the user manual!) canon has not changed the user manual since release and after using my lens I agree with the manual.

I sold my 300 f 2.8 L IS to get this lens because of the added value of nearly 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f4 with the 1.4 & 2X converters with 5 stops of IS.

Yes I use my 7-200 mk II more but when shooting bar bands with a 1DX at max ISO nothing else will get the shot!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 23, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> And don't forget you can stack two 2x teleconverters and get an 800mm f/8 that will still autofocus on a 1D-series (I'd like to see how usable that would be though, any of you lucky-suckers who own one wanna test?).



And what IQ would one get after stacking two 2x TCs?


----------



## Crapking (Mar 26, 2013)

XNAI1022 by PVC 2012, on Flickr





XNAI0108 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


Before going to Flickr -which lens was used ??


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> My guess, 'cos I love playing this stuff
> 
> First one 200 f2, second on 70-200 f2.8.


+1


----------



## bvukich (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> A stop can be a lot, however most of the time it is nothing, iso 100-200 is the same as 1/250-1/500 for instance, and few people are shooting portraits with the 200 f2 at 1600 iso and higher out of necessity. In situations where you really are pushing your equipments limits then obviously one stop can be the make or break point.



But realistically you're not looking at ISO 200-100 for indoor sports, you'd be looking more at ISO 6400-3200 (or as you mentioned 1/250-1/500); which IS a huge difference. And for instances where you do have the luxury of lower ISOs, you can burn that extra stop on shutter speed or stopping down for sharpness/dof as needed.



privatebydesign said:


> As for the lens giving an unrepeatable "unique look", well we all know that is rubbish, for a start you can Breznier Method 200 f2 with almost any lens, you can certainly get much shallower dof using the 85 f1.8 and the Breznier technique. Similarly few, if anybody, can actually pick out these "unique look" lenses when they don't know what the image was actually shot with.



For portraits, absolutely. Although you have to go long for the desired level of compression and need to keep an eye on MFD. And you have to incur the overhead of stitching/processing them. Definitely worth it for a special shot though. And if absolute sharpness isn't your goal, arguably, you may even be better off.

The main use case for this lens is indoor sports though, and and you're kinda out of luck there.

At least you have a balanced and realistic and balanced opinion of what this lens is and isn't. Better than those that insist it's "the one true lens" (usually because they own one), or that it's overpriced junk (usually because they can't afford one).

Me, I greatly appreciate the lens for it's strengths, and I'd love to have one some day. But I'm not under the illusion that it's the perfect lens for everyone, or for every use.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > A stop can be a lot, however most of the time it is nothing, iso 100-200 is the same as 1/250-1/500 for instance, and few people are shooting portraits with the 200 f2 at 1600 iso and higher out of necessity. *In situations where you really are pushing your equipments limits then obviously one stop can be the make or break point.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would buy one solely for portraiture but at the moment the 135L is the closest Ill get.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> P.S. To be sure, my reason for posting was not to dampen the spirits of any 200 f2 owners, I doubt I could and wouldn't want to .
> 
> It is an awesome lens and a real blast to use. My concern, especially when a particular lens is held up as having a "unique look" is that somebody fixates on it and believes it will be a magic bullet to improve their photography, when, in truth, it rarely is.



There is no magic bullets but the 200 F/2L is a lens with a unique look, along with the 85LII, 50L, 135L, 35L, and 24LII.


----------



## dmsphoto (Mar 26, 2013)

I own both and both are superb performers. And both have their place. For me, I carry both to almost every job and will typically put 200/2 of FF and 70-200II on crop to start but that changes. One won't replace the other and I find the primes tend to produce better looking photos (color, contrast) than zooms. That said the V2 of the 70-200 is a stellar performer, much better than V1 IMO. If I was starting out I would buy the 70-200II before anything else. Certainly a workhorse


----------



## Smurf1811 (Apr 11, 2013)

I sold my 24-70 2.8 L II, my 70-300 L an my 70-200 2.8 L IS II last week....to buy the magic 200 2.0 L. I love it ;D...but the 70-200 2.8 L IS II is also a great lens. I think i will buy a new one next year


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2013)

Smurf1811 said:


> I sold my 24-70 2.8 L II, my 70-300 L an my 70-200 2.8 L IS II last week....to buy the magic 200 2.0 L.



That would be a little extreme, for me. But the thought did occur to me that by selling my 35L, 24-105L and 28-300L, and 100-400L, I'd be better than half way to a 300/2.8L IS II. :-X


----------



## Studio1930 (Apr 11, 2013)

I own both and for me the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is used when I need the versatility of a zoom and the guaranteed sharpness. The 200 f/2 is used when I need better tracking and twice the light such as indoor sports. They are not even close to being the same lens and I would never think of getting rid of the zoom when owning the f/2.

Here is an example of what the 200 f/2 can do in very low light. The 70-200 would have needed double the ISO to get this same shot which would have killed it (or required me to dig out the flash - no time for that). The 200 f/2 on a 1DX is as close to magic as we can get right now.


----------



## Crapking (Apr 11, 2013)

NCVX0320 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

200/2L





NCVX0246 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

70-200 2.8L II


Luv em both like my children, can't say I love one more than the other...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 15, 2013)

I liked the 200 f/2 for landscape and wildlife shots. I don't feel the primary use of the lens is indoor sports. Obviously that _is_ the primary use of this lens for _sports photographers_...but there are also plenty of theatre photographers who use it, plenty of portrait shooters...and plenty of nature shooters. In my opinion the main advantage of the lens is not to create shallow DOF. The main advantage is the color palette, combined with the natural yet very wide contrast, and sharpness/resolution. Shallow DOF can be captured with most any fast aperture lens.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 15, 2013)

TM said:


> I finally purchased the Canon 200mm f2.0. It's an amazing lens by itself and produces great photos. It's also huge and with the hood, takes up all the space in my backpack.
> 
> The 70-200mm is smaller, relatively cheap, more versatile and at 200mm f2.8, can get close to great results, but not quite the same caliber. Do you guys still manage to make use of both 70-200mm f2.8 II and the 200mm f2.0 regularly? What are your thoughts?



Yes, it's a problem isn't it, but what a great one to have, I have both Lenses, I do use the 70-200f/2.8 II more than the 200f/2, but, I man love that 200f/2, and if it's the size that worries you, solve the issue the same way I did.

Get a Bigger backpack.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 15, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> I own both and for me the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is used when I need the versatility of a zoom and the guaranteed sharpness. The 200 f/2 is used when I need better tracking and twice the light such as indoor sports. They are not even close to being the same lens and I would never think of getting rid of the zoom when owning the f/2.
> 
> Here is an example of what the 200 f/2 can do in very low light. The 70-200 would have needed double the ISO to get this same shot which would have killed it (or required me to dig out the flash - no time for that). The 200 f/2 on a 1DX is as close to magic as we can get right now.



Hi Studio 1930, You pull off some amazing shots of these Dogs, absolutely Nail the focus, well done, and the dogs always look Happy, wether they're into the Pool, laying in the snow, whatever, happy Dogs.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 17, 2013)

Studio 1930, it looks like the dog on the left thinks it's about to get a treat. I hope it got one! I love the bokeh of the lights...and again...the color and contrast of that lens...it's just magic.

I really wish I owned a 200 f/2. Hopefully someday. I think I may post a shot I did with the one I rented in fall 2011, in a landscape photo contest...assuming it hasn't already been closed (and assuming I can still log in). I'm sure it won't go anywhere, though...especially since it's a "portrait" oriented shot. They don't seem to like those. They always prefer a wide angle shot done in one of the parks in the Rockies, or Yosemite. Mine was "only" done in Appalachia...


----------

