Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by winhag@yahoo.com, Sep 21, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Folks,

    These two lenses are roughly the same price. Outside of the obvious
    benefits of having a zoom, has anyone had experience with both? In
    terms of image quality what is your take? I have seen good reports on
    both. My gut tells me that if the price is roughly the same, the 200mm
    f2.8/L probably gives better image quality, but I would like to hear
    critically from anyone that has experience with both. Thanks in
    advance.

    W
     
    , Sep 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 21 Sep 2005 09:33:02 -0700, "" <>
    wrote:

    >Folks,
    >
    >These two lenses are roughly the same price. Outside of the obvious
    >benefits of having a zoom, has anyone had experience with both? In
    >terms of image quality what is your take? I have seen good reports on
    >both. My gut tells me that if the price is roughly the same, the 200mm
    >f2.8/L probably gives better image quality, but I would like to hear
    >critically from anyone that has experience with both. Thanks in
    >advance.


    Look here...

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=7&cat=2&page=2

    and here

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

    User reviews of both lenses...


    *********************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Sep 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnR66 Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Folks,
    >
    > These two lenses are roughly the same price. Outside of the obvious
    > benefits of having a zoom, has anyone had experience with both? In
    > terms of image quality what is your take? I have seen good reports on
    > both. My gut tells me that if the price is roughly the same, the 200mm
    > f2.8/L probably gives better image quality, but I would like to hear
    > critically from anyone that has experience with both. Thanks in
    > advance.
    >
    > W
    >

    Canon's own MTF charts seem to indicate the zoom being sharper except at the
    edges. The 200/2.8 seems to be an older design. Compare to the MTF charts of
    any of the other L series tele primes, it seems to be left behind. Not sure
    if the zoom will fit on Canon's teleconverters, but it should work fine on a
    1.4x and retain AF.

    I'd go for the the zoom in this case. It performs very good for a zoom lens.
    My only wish is that it had IS. My 300/4 L has IS and it is a godsend.

    John
     
    JohnR66, Sep 22, 2005
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jerry

    Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

    Jerry, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    407
    incabloc
    Sep 7, 2003
  2. This Old Man

    Tripod collar for Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM?

    This Old Man, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,434
    Bill Hilton
    Oct 20, 2003
  3. n
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    394
  4. Rod Bruno

    FS : Canon 70-200mm 2.8 USM / Canon 2.X II Autofocus

    Rod Bruno, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    481
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Canon 1Ds Mark-II + Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens

    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    647
    John McWilliams
    Feb 5, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page