Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Canon lens recommendation - 200mm f2.8l vs. 70-200mm f4l
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Canon lens recommendation - 200mm f2.8l vs. 70-200mm f4l

post #1 of 18
11/17/09 at 2:19pm
Thread Starter 
Anyone have experience with both of these? Only lens right now is the canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS, but I'm considering selling that and grabbing a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Camera is a Canon 20D. Uses would be animal photography, some sports (generally outdoors in good light). Obviously I'm not a pro; just getting into photography. Want to buy quality gear that I can grow with, but at the same time not in a position to go out and grab something like the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

Neither have IS. Size/weight are pretty similar. The 70-200mm comes in around $600, the 200mm is around $800.

Thoughts on the tradeoff between an extra stop and having zoom? Any experience with IQ between the two? Is it a bad idea to buy a lens in this focal length without IS?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 18
11/17/09 at 2:25pm
i don't use lenses that long but i would think that for sports and animals a zoom is absolutely necessary. prime lenses are better for portraits, architecture, etc. stationary subjects.

if you shoot during the day then i don't see a problem with f/4 or non ism.

since you live in a big city i suggest renting these lenses for the weekend to try them out first--shouldn't cost more than $15 per lens.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 18
11/17/09 at 2:32pm
also, at 200mm the DoF is so shallow you are likely to get focusing errors at f/2.8. you'll probably end up shooting at f/4 or smaller anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 18
11/17/09 at 3:44pm
The 200 2.8 is a beautiful lens: I've used it in its FD incarnation and own it in the EF mount. Which one you get depends on what you want to use it for. 200 2.8 is great for sports and available-light photography, as well as letting you use higher shutter speeds. The shallow depth of field lets you really isolate your subject. In both manual focus and autofocus, I have not found its shallow DOF to be a problem, though you should expect a learning curve if you're not used to a lens with this shallow a DOF.

It is a very high quality lens, better than any zoom, but whether that's important depends on what you do with your pictures.

It is a long lens, made longer by your camera's 1.6 multiplier, so it will be somewhat of a niche lens. If you want to experiment with prime lenses, I'd look at the 135/2, 100/2, or 85/1.8, because their shorter focal lengths will make them more versatile than the 200. All are high quality lenses (especially the 135), and the shooting style afforded by a fast prime is enough to differentiate it from a zoom that already covers the same focal length.

Anyway, m's advice to rent is good. Often you won't get a good feeling for a lens until you shoot with it.

--Andre
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 18
11/17/09 at 4:29pm
That is a tough call. I don't have experience with either lens, but conventional wisdom says that the image quality of a prime is going to be better than a zoom lens at the same focal length. Since you're shooting sports, you'll need generally need quick shutter speeds. Especially so if your lens has no IS (though, you say you generally shoot in good light, so this is less of a problem). This and image quality favors the prime.

On the other hand, I think you'll get more use out of the zoom, which is obviously a more versitile lens. I think that the deciding factor is whether you want a specialist lens or a general purpose zoom. Since you are just beginning, I think you should stick with the zoom. You could always upgrade when you know you'll need a specialist lens.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 18
11/17/09 at 5:16pm
Always buy the fastest lens you can afford. /thread
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 18
11/17/09 at 6:22pm
It looks like Canon is coming out with a 70-200 2.8IS II in the very near future so once that happens, you should see a price drop on the current 70-200.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 18
11/18/09 at 1:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota rube View Post
Always buy the fastest lens you can afford.
/thread

Wrong. If your shooting mostly wildlife and sports in daylight (emphasis on daylight) than F4 will be fast enough for you. Also that fast 2.8 is a prime which is not too suitable for what your shooting since wildlife and sports have movement as a key variable in the shot. Now dont get me wrong I normally advocate fast glass as well, just not in your particular situation.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 18
11/18/09 at 2:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by al gore
Well, you don't have to get all snippy about it...
Sorry. I must've missed when he said he was shooting outdoors. I still would rather err on the side of lens speed.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 18
11/18/09 at 5:52am
I'd gor for the 200L 2.8, because you can later add multiplier like 1,4 or 2 and still not take a hit in speed. A x2 multiplier will get you a 400 f5.6 which is still reasonably fast.
For wildlife, I don't know if faster is better, but longer sure is!

!luc
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 18
11/18/09 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc-Emmanuel View Post
I'd gor for the 200L 2.8, because you can later add multiplier like 1,4 or 2 and still not take a hit in speed. A x2 multiplier will get you a 400 f5.6 which is still reasonably fast. For wildlife, I don't know if faster is better, but longer sure is! !luc
+1 There's no such thing as too long. I get 560 equiv @ f/4.9 with a teleconverter on my 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 (on olympus) and it's still not long enough.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 18
11/18/09 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikej77 View Post
It looks like Canon is coming out with a 70-200 2.8IS II in the very near future so once that happens, you should see a price drop on the current 70-200.

seconded. the 70-200/2.8IS is an exceptional lens.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 18
11/18/09 at 5:04pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the comments. I think the suggestion to rent both is the way to go.

70-200mm f2.8 IS is well outside my price range, but I'm starting to give consideration to the 70-200mm f4 IS. Just under twice the cost of the non-IS version, but supposedly sharper and apparently an excellent implementation of IS (which I realize is not helpful for sports, but is something I think would be beneficial for me in other types of shooting).

I should note that my wildlife photography will likely be limited to the zoo, so extreme zoom is probably not required. That said, good point about the 200mm 2.8 being a better match for teleconverters.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 18
11/18/09 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcg View Post
Thanks for the comments. I think the suggestion to rent both is the way to go.

70-200mm f2.8 IS is well outside my price range, but I'm starting to give consideration to the 70-200mm f4 IS. Just under twice the cost of the non-IS version, but supposedly sharper and apparently an excellent implementation of IS (which I realize is not helpful for sports, but is something I think would be beneficial for me in other types of shooting).

I should note that my wildlife photography will likely be limited to the zoo, so extreme zoom is probably not required. That said, good point about the 200mm 2.8 being a better match for teleconverters.

Even so, if it's something you do often, the more zoom the better. With my aforementioned setup I couldn't get in close enough to the zebras on my last outing. Some of the enclosures at the zoo can be huge.

It's always a better use of money to be realistic about your shooting habits though. Spend the money where you'll use it the most.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 18
11/20/09 at 4:20am
For a zoom lens, i would think IS would be extremely valuable. I've been told time and time again from photographers how IS has saved so many shots for them.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Canon lens recommendation - 200mm f2.8l vs. 70-200mm f4l