anyone want to help me decide between these 2 lenses

J

jann1033

Member
canon 200mm f2.8 and canon 70-200 f4...i have the range between 18- 135 mm, mostly 3.5 aperture at the largest except 50 f1.8... covered but want a better aperture and more zoom...this is about the budget cut off( so no 70-200 f2.8 allowed :D). the main pro for 200 is the aperture, for the 70-200 the fact it's a zoom..think they are fairly comparable in all other areas ...i like using primes but not sure if i want something more flexible...want it mostly for animals and birds( probably at feeder and in zoo type environments) so the zoom should be enough esp. if i get a teleconverter which i am planning on soon but then that will make the f4 even worse speed wise. have a rebel xt. any ideas to help me decide?
Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used to own the 200/2.8 I. It's the one with the built in hood. Most of my 35mm Fantasmic! pictures were taken with that lens only. It is so sharp you could cut yourself (just kidding).

I've heard decent things about the 70-200/4, esp about the weight compared to the 2.8. Supposedly it's also sharper than the 2.8.

If you aren't planning on taking night time available light pictures, the 70-200/4 with even the 1.4 TC will still give you a 98-280/5.6 before the APS-C crop factor increase, which should be good for outdoor zoo pictures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it is the best value L zoom lens; taking over that spot from the ol' 100-300/5.6L (Arc Motor Drive)
 
different horses for different courses as the saying goes, i currently own both and would not part with either, i'll give my reasons why
200 f2.8= sharp, no kidding, this may just be the sharpest of the 9 primes, all canon, that i own, the only 1 i don't have that's rumored better is the legendary 135 f2,
70-200 f4 non IS, probably the best bargain in the L series for price, just may be canon's sharpest zoom, works just fine with 1.4 tele, no image degradation that i can see, making it a great zoo, or close birding lens, it's a good wdw lens, my only whine is that it's white, i wish with all my heart and soul this was black, it would be making the trip to europe in a heartbeat if it was
weight = i just hefted each of them, switched hands, i can't really feel a difference, maybe 70-200 slightly lighter to feel, however the new IS version does pack a noticeable weight gain due to the gyroscope parts
built in hood is nice, this is a feature that should be on all primes and could be engineered for all internal zooms
autofocus = canon fast on both, no difference i see
my thoughts on this = you may be able to get both of these used for around the price of the new IS version, i hear great things about the new version BUT, canon tacked on a pretty healthy price increase, having said that, many pros and just gotta have the latest and best types are flocking it seems to the IS version, thus their appears to be more of the non IS in great shape coming on the market, whearas the 200 seems to be in slightly shorter supply
if your heart really lies with primes, consider getting a used 200, save the leftover money and when funding permits follow up with the 135 f2, used, this really is legendary, and deservedly so for it's sharpness, but do not confuse it with the soft focus version which is a specialty portrait lens. this gives you 2 fast primes of 216mm and 320mm
i think it all goes down to which fits your shooting style and favorite subjects, primes or zooms
btw my concert bag kit is 85 f1.8, 100 f2, 200 f2.8, all primes, all the time, over in my concert thread, with the exception of the campbell brothers all were done with primes, most of the rhythm and roots shots with the 85 1.8
gary
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"gary" said:
different horses for different courses as the saying goes
Click to expand...
i thought it was different strokes for different folks?? :)

"gary" said:
70-200 f4 non IS, probably the best bargain in the L series for price, just may be canon's sharpest zoom, works just fine with 1.4 tele, no image degradation that i can see, making it a great zoo, or close birding lens, it's a good wdw lens, my only whine is that it's white, i wish with all my heart and soul this was black
Click to expand...
i agree big time with this statement. i really hate the way white lenses look.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sorry for 2nd post, i just thought of a couple more things, lenses in good shape hold their value, esp L grades, but in 5 years a digital camera is technically obsolete, doesn't mean it won't take good pictures, it's just that by then there's something newer, with better features, usually for 1/2 the money available
there are a lot of rumors floating around right now about what, if any canon will introduce at pmia in march, they really are under the gun from the nikon d40 to upgrade their mid range 1.6 (30d model), there's a 47 page thread on fred mirandas site under canon gear just from the moderator trying to keep all the rumor threads in 1 spot
1 though that keeps showing up on many places and forums is that canon is going towards having 1.6 sensor size only in the entry level camera, with ef-s series of lenses, and the 30d price point will eventually become the full frame entry point, and full frame will NOT TOLERATE anything less than good glass, making a good case for owning a nice selection of L primes, in fact i believe that full frame is going to force canon into re-engineering many of their L zooms, their are a lot of soft image complaints about the 2.8 zooms when shot wide open on full frame, and i feel if you can't use them wide open, why carry the weight of the 2.8 zooms
just my .02 worth, your mileage may vary as they say
gary
 
i've got the 70-200/4 and its a very good lens but i rarely use it. i like it a lot but its combination of length and the f/4 just makes me wary of taking it. its heft isn't an issue but it is just a bit too long to easily fit in a small shoulder bag, not can I keep the camera on the lens and then put it in a standard shoulder photo bag (it sticks out, throwing off weight distribution and you don';t want to drop that stuff).

in the end, i go fats. i got the 135/2 for wedding photography (to replace the 70-200 which really didn't do receptions well) and it is fantastic.

another option is the 70-300 IS. its lighter and smaller (at 70mm) than the 70-200 and it is around the same price, a bit more. but for that it gives you somethign that fits in a bag better, gives you more hand hold time (the IS) while also giving a longer length. on my 20d its like a 500mm/5.6 that I can handhold to 1/125th.

but if you had to pick one of your two I'd go with the 200.2.8 the 70-200 is usually shot at 200 anyway (the 70-300 is usually shot at 300) so you might as well stick with the better glass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jann,

we both have a similar hand condition. Taking that into consideration, I'd recommend the 70-200 f/4 IS. OR if you want to turn muscular and green plus sporting a bad do, then you should go with 70-200 f/2.8 IS. ;D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top