# 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II



## polarhannes (Aug 23, 2014)

Hello everyone,

I own the 70-200 II and I am mostly doing portraiture.
Does someone here own both and can upload some sample shots (wide open)? The question is if the bokeh and sharpness really is that much better (of course it is, but is it worth the serious amount of cash? How much is the difference really in IQ and bokeh?)

I also thought of getting the 300 2.8 (which would then be my longest lens), but it might really be a bit long for portraits.

Thanks to all of you helpful people


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 23, 2014)

I've used the 200 f/2 briefly; it is very sharp indeed. I should have one frame I kept at home somewhere if someone doesn't upload something first. The only person who knows if a stop is worth six large is you, but I know I would like to get one of them and a 135 f/2 for indoor sports.

On that note what about the 135? Do you use the long end more?

Jim


----------



## cid (Aug 23, 2014)

maybe this will help a bit
Lisa Holloway 500px profile

almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2014)

cid said:


> maybe this will help a bit
> Lisa Holloway 500px profile
> 
> almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!


Thanks for the link. My GAS just shifted to another state.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 23, 2014)

I got this one under terrible light, hand-held, ISO to the moon.

Jim


----------



## cid (Aug 23, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > maybe this will help a bit
> ...


I'm sorry for your wallet ;D


----------



## Vern (Aug 24, 2014)

I have used both lenses for portraits but have never done a side-by-side comparison. You should take a look at the Digital Picture (www.the-digital-picture.com) for the review of the 200 f2. The IQ of the two at their respective max. aperture is pretty much identical and Bryan has a comparison of some portraits at 2.0 and 2.8 with the 200 f2 that will give you a good idea of the relative background blur. I bought the 200 2.0 for indoor volleyball where the extra speed is critical to stop action. I use the 135 f2.0 as well. While a great lens, its IQ is a notch down from the 200. If I was only shooting portraits, the 70-200 2.8II would be fine and adding the 200 2.0 would not be necessary. However, if you are additionally interested in indoor sports, the 2.0 is wonderful - and also can be used for amazing portraits - as Lisa Holloway's work highlights. Are they $6K better than the 70-200 could render? Only you can decide.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 24, 2014)

I've had every 70-200 Canon makes and had the 70-200 mk2 when I bought the 200, sold the 70-200 after a week when I promised myself I would keep it six months to be sure, but I have never looked back. There is NO lens like the 200 f2. It's simply insane in every aspect.

I bought mine used, it was hardly touched and only 13 months old and I saved 3238 dollars compared to buying it brand new. so it was actually only 2,5 times more than the 70-200 I already had..

The one lens I will NEVER sell..


----------



## Perio (Aug 24, 2014)

Maybe a very simple comparison, but nevertheless I hope it helps. All images are taken with Canon 5d original. Just simple conversion from RAW to JPEG. 

200 f2.0 at 2.0


----------



## Perio (Aug 24, 2014)

200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8; both at f2.8


----------



## Perio (Aug 24, 2014)

200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8 (both at f3.2)


----------



## Perio (Aug 24, 2014)

200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8 (both at f5.6)


----------



## Perio (Aug 24, 2014)

200 f2.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8 (both at f7.1)


----------



## eml58 (Aug 25, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I've had every 70-200 Canon makes and had the 70-200 mk2 when I bought the 200, sold the 70-200 after a week when I promised myself I would keep it six months to be sure, but I have never looked back. There is NO lens like the 200 f2. It's simply insane in every aspect.
> 
> I bought mine used, it was hardly touched and only 13 months old and I saved 3238 dollars compared to buying it brand new. so it was actually only 2,5 times more than the 70-200 I already had..
> 
> The one lens I will NEVER sell..



Agree with Viggo, the 70-200f/2.8 II is a wonderful and very versatile Lens, the 200f/2 is simply a brilliant Lens.

If your thing is portraits I can't think of much that would do it better, the 200f/2 is a little less versatile than the 70-200f/2.8 II, but there's not much else that Canon make that's sharper then the 200f/2, maybe the 300f/2.8 II, maybe, I have all three, I generally grab the 200f/2 for anything other than wildlife..

I find myself more and more throwing the 200f/2 into the bag rather than the 70-200, unless I'm shooting wildlife, but for a longer Lens street work, Temples, People etc, the 200f/2 is just brilliant & it works so well on the 1Dx or the 5DMK III.

Be aware if you pick up a 2nd hand unit as Viggo has, you will need (unless it's been done) to get it into Canon to have the firmware upgraded for the 1Dx & 5DMK III, it works fine though without the upgrade on the earlier Canon Bodies, 5DMK II, 1DMK IV etc.


----------



## Crapking (Aug 25, 2014)

Intensity by NAVBPhotos, on Flickr

Just another example from the 200/2 to look at. I shoot regularly with both, but if only had I chance, would ALWAYS grab the 200/2 - faster AF, better bokeh, more natural color tones, but the versatility/flexibility of the 70-200 sometimes trumps the 200....but if I have the space / time to plan my shots, the 200/2 is my go-to lens.

Even outdoors when the f2.0 isn't needed, there is just something about this lens...

Tight Turn by NAVBPhotos, on Flickr


----------



## docsmith (Aug 25, 2014)

wow....I've compared sharpness between the two before, but the difference in bokeh is amazing.

Unfortunately, I don't have a spare $6,000 lying around....


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 25, 2014)

polarhannes said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I own the 70-200 II and I am mostly doing portraiture.
> Does someone here own both and can upload some sample shots (wide open)? The question is if the bokeh and sharpness really is that much better (of course it is, but is it worth the serious amount of cash? How much is the difference really in IQ and bokeh?)
> ...



If your thing is portrait, there is no doubt that the 200mm f2L is the king of bokeh but, for practical terms the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II does almost the same at 200mm. If you have deep pockets go for it.
I would keep saving and get the 300mm f2.8L IS II instead.


----------



## jasonsim (Aug 25, 2014)

I would say...save your $5000. I was there and ended up keeping the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. For capturing fast moving sports, there is no substitute for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. 

For portraits, I would suggest an 85mm f/1.2L II and / or 135mm f/2L. I had both and kept the 135mm for head shots. Kept the 50mm f/1.2L and sold off the 85mm f/1.2L II. But I do think that the 85mm II is the king of bokeh. It was just that I did not use it enough and always ended up taking my 24-70 f/2.8L II + 50 f/1.2L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II around in my bag. 

Sure the bokeh is nice with the 200mm f/2L, but I'd wager that my 300mm f/2.8L II or 600mm f/4L II's bokeh is even nicer! Those are just not so practical for portraiture. So stick with something you are most likely to use and keep in your bag. 

You might also look into a 200mm f/1.8L; I liked it even more than the 200mm f/2L; but it is also gone for same reason of lack of use:


----------



## Claret-Flyer (Aug 25, 2014)

For portraits, I would suggest an 85mm f/1.2 is unbeatable. Just the right level of compression, the sharpness and bokeh to die for and your close enough to your subject to have chat with them and make feel relaxed. You also don't need a massive studio.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2014)

It might not be for everyone of course, but I feel a bit of bubbling in my belly when I keep seeing people say "it's almost the same as the 70-200 @ 200" no it is not. It might not be worth it to you, but it's a BIG difference. I must've read a thousand user reviews that said the same and 90% had one thing in common, they were written by people who had read other user revies, not by people owning or using the lens.

The 85 L is wonderful for some things, but "sharpness to die for" when we're talking about the 200 f2? Yeah, not so much.

And I think what makes a lens give that pop, is very high level of sharpness against the smoothest possible background and there there is no lens like the 200, unless you go even higher up. But for portraits I find 200 is the longest you should go for head shots.

Again, it isn't for everyone and god knows it's a lot of money, so if you're happy with the 70-200, there's nothing wrong about that, because it's absolutely killer and one of the best zooms ever made. But it's never going to be "basically the same as the 200".


----------



## polarhannes (Aug 25, 2014)

Thanks everyone for your great help - *especially to Perio* for creating the test shots. Just what I was looking for!

The bokeh @2.8 (and of course @2.0) really shows the difference. Wow, what a lens!

I rented the 85 1.2 II a couple of times but I found it too slow AF wise and I really prefer the long end for full-body shots, even if it means that I have to walk far away from my subject. 

The question is if the comparison between the 135 2.0 and the 70-200 is as dramatic as the 200 2.0?

I currently have in my kit the 16-35 2.8 L II, 24-70 2.8 L II, 70-200 2.8 L II, 100 2.8 L IS Macro (which is a very sharp and very often overlooked lens, might be a bit redundant to add the 135 L then), Sigma 35 Art (which is too risky for me to use in critical situations due to AF issues) and the Shorty Forty (which I use as a camera protection cap lol).
I use the 5d3 and the 1DX and always bring my flashes when possible, so filter usage is important when outdoors (sync speed).
It is not that I am not satisfied with my kit, but I just feel I could add some more 'wow' to my images. Maybe I should just visit some Photoshop classes  I will post some pictures later on.

I really love this forum, so much great advice!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2014)

Just to add one thing - the 300 f/2.8 IS II is awesome for portraits if you have the room, but it's not exactly the first choice for me. It's big, heavy, and conspicuous (sort of like the 200L), but does deliver great results. I prefer the 85L (which is my first choice for posed portraits), but Canon makes so many fine portrait lenses that it's hard to choose for sure.


----------



## Invertalon (Aug 25, 2014)

^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!



6M3C8536.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr



6M3C8521.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr



6M3C8575.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr



6M3C8538.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr



6M3C5474.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr



6M3C7728.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2014)

Invertalon said:


> ^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!


Nice examples! The bokeh on the lizard shot is insane!


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Invertalon said:
> 
> 
> > ^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!
> ...



I love the lizard shot also, very nice color and the light is spot on ! (Pun intended)


----------



## Perio (Aug 25, 2014)

polarhannes said:


> Thanks everyone for your great help - *especially to Perio* for creating the test shots. Just what I was looking for!



Sure, no problem. If you need a more specific comparison, just let me know and I'll do that.


----------



## eml58 (Aug 26, 2014)

Again, completely agree with Viggo's comments, I own & use the 85f/1.2, 135f/2, 70-200f/2.8, all excellent lenses, but the 200f/2 is just head & shoulders apart, the sharpness, the Bokeh & the colour rendition are just about perfect. The 70-200f/2.8 II @ 200 ?? lovely, but just not as good as the 200f/2.

If you can get past the price you will not likely regret owning this lens.

The attached is an example of what the lens can do, Japan in Autumn 1Dx 200f/2 @ f/2


----------



## jasonsim (Aug 26, 2014)

300 f/2.8L IS II is awesome. Sharpest lens in Canon's line-up and killer bokeh.







With 1.4x III added:






With 2x III added:






The results with the extenders is simply amazing. Any extender on the 200mm f/2L IS and it falls to pieces.


----------



## eml58 (Aug 26, 2014)

jasonsim said:


> 300 f/2.8L IS II is awesome. Sharpest lens in Canon's line-up and killer bokeh.
> 
> Any extender on the 200mm f/2L IS and it falls to pieces.



Well I can agree with the first point, the 300f/2.8 II is an amazingly sharp Lens & it does work well with the 1.4x III Extender, the 2x III Extender not as well, but that's to be expected.

I can't see the 2nd point though, the 200f/2 works just as well with the 1.4x III Extender as the 300 in my experience, perhaps not as well as the 300 with the 2x III Extender.

I've had the 200f/2 for several Years now & used the Lens extensively, my current 300f/2.8 is the Version II, bought after selling the Version 1, both these Lenses are sharp, the V II maybe, maybe a tad sharper, but the benefits here at least to me have been mostly in the weight distribution and the weight loss.


----------



## Perio (Aug 26, 2014)

eml58 said:


> jasonsim said:
> 
> 
> > 300 f/2.8L IS II is awesome. Sharpest lens in Canon's line-up and killer bokeh.
> ...



The comparison I'd love to see is Canon 200 f2.0 vs. Zeiss 135 f2.0 ZE. Does anyone have both lenses to compare?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > maybe this will help a bit
> ...



Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > cid said:
> ...


I'm afraid to touch one


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 26, 2014)

Invertalon said:


> ^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!



Crazy spectacular!

You've just put the 300 f/2.8ii very high on my want list!


----------



## SoullessPolack (Aug 26, 2014)

You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer. 

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???" They claim those lenses are great for background separation. You know what else is? ANY lens and a knowledge of composition. I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens. You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end. But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider. You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things. Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), _practice_ photography more, and just enjoy life more. 

Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 26, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.
> 
> You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.
> 
> ...



Thank you. Excellent post. Way too much time spent looking for the "magic bullet" that will make fantasy photos when the truth is that hard work and practice is what gets it done.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.
> 
> You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.
> 
> ...



My head hurts from reading that... It's different what you and I want from our photography, so don't tell anyone what they need or that a 70-200 f4 gives you what you want if you want a 200 f2 just by reading a little...


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 26, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



@ sagittariansrock - Thank you for the encouragement 

@ mackguyver - I know your feeling. I'm testing out my 400 + 1.4x and 2x TC right now. Hope it works as I planned, so I can cross the 600mm off my wanted list. If that is the case, there should be enough room for 200mm f2. Until then, I'm ain't-gonna touch that BEAST ;D 

My rental 600mm should arrived next week. I want to see how 840mm and 1200mm IQ looks with 1dx.


----------



## Dantana (Aug 26, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.
> 
> You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.
> 
> ...



Hmmm.

Interesting post.

I think that it's helpful to remember that these are all tools, the bodies, lenses, lighting, etc. We all choose different tools based on what we are looking for and how we work.

You have chosen the 70-200 4 as your tool of choice, and apparently it does what you want it to. I don't own it, but from what I've heard it's a great lens. It is, however, a very different tool than the 200 2. 

I don't currently have the cash for tools like the 200 2 (or even the 70-200 2.8 IS II), but I did have the chance to pick up the 200 2.8 II for a good price used last year and I have been happy having that as a tool in my kit. Would I say it's better than the 200 2? No. It's a different tool. It's much smaller and less expensive and I've gotten some great images out of it. I will never be able to open it up to 2.0 though, and it will never have that same look. It is a lot easier to fit in my pack on a hike though, which is important to me. Maybe that's not important to the OP. Maybe the cost is no issue. For me the cost (and size) of that lens don't justify a place for that tool in my toolbox. If I had the means, I'd love to have one though.

I think it's odd to criticize someone for asking about a particular tool and then telling them they need to learn more about composition. These are separate things. We should all work on out technique. That should be a given.


----------



## jasonsim (Aug 26, 2014)

Hi Dylan,

Here is the 600mm II + 2x III + 1Dx quality. I think it is very very good:













Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 26, 2014)

jasonsim said:


> Hi Dylan,
> 
> Here is the 600mm II + 2x III + 1Dx quality. I think it is very very good:
> 
> ...


Thank you Jason.

Do you remember the shooting info of these photos? aperture? ISO? an what mode you were shooting?


----------



## SoullessPolack (Aug 27, 2014)

Dantana said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.
> ...



Please point out where I criticized him for considering the lens. I urged him to reconsider, based on my experiences, which is considerably different than criticizing. Just like everyone else here who are giving their recommendations based on their own personal experiences. Am I only supposed to reply to the thread if I agree with the norm? He asked a question, and I have responded with my own opinions, just like everyone else, and the poster should take it all into consideration and then make a choice when taking into account all the factors important to him. That's the great thing about internet forums. Someone can ask a question A or B, and I can respond with a completely different answer C that wasn't asked or considered but may actually work for the person asking.

I agree, we should all work on our technique. But I've found it's always good to give a friendly reminder that sometimes we assign more weight to gear than we should. Gear can certainly be important, but even more so, is our photographic technique. Too often people will purchase gear thinking that it will improve the photographs they take, when spending 1/10th that amount on education would vastly improve their photography in relation. That may or may not be the case, but there's nothing wrong with reminding people about the importance of composition. We all forget that from time to time. I've been guilty of it myself.


----------



## polarhannes (Aug 27, 2014)

Thank you everybody for your great feedback and thoughts!

The images from the 300 2.8 were totally amazing - seeing as I already have the 70-200 2.8 that might also be an option which would give me more flexibility (+1.4xTC or 2xTC). Most of the time I have enough room to stand far away.

I also agree that I should spend more time learning from the pros than to invest in gear - but the lenses are just sooooo tempting and I am extremely affected by G.A.S. ;D I think photography requires continuous improvement in both aspects, technique and gear. As you move on with your technique, better tools can help you to fully utilize your newly learned skills.

I often am around fashion shows or shoot weddings for friends who can't afford a 'real' photographer or who want a 2nd shooter. Here are some examples, critique is very welcome as I know I still have a lot to learn. At the moment I am trying to improve the 'posing people' part. 
The motorbike picture was taken using my Fuji X100S, the other ones using my 5D3.


----------



## polarhannes (Aug 27, 2014)

I sometimes also shoot landscapes or animals.


----------



## eml58 (Aug 27, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.



Umm, what ?????

Yes, that's why I bought my Canon 200f/2, my Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4, my Canon 135f/2, my Zeiss 135 f/2, the stupidly thin DOF, what else ???? Well sharpness included of course, all these Lenses have that in spades.

The 200f/2 is I think just about affordable pain, can you or can't you, if you can, that's the end of the debate, once you have it I can pretty well Guarantee you will never get rid of it, well, at least until Canon release the 200f/2 V II.


----------



## eml58 (Aug 27, 2014)

polarhannes said:


> I sometimes also shoot landscapes or animals.



Love the Chimp shot, well done.


----------



## Perio (Aug 27, 2014)

eml58 said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.
> ...



What's your opinion about the IQ of 200 f2.0 vs. Zeiss 135 f2.0? Do you have any samples to compare the bokeh and sharpness?


----------

