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

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

  1. winhag

    winhag Guest


    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

    winhag, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Look here...

    and here

    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-
    John A. Stovall, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. winhag

    JohnR66 Guest

    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.

    JohnR66, Sep 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.