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

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

  1. 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

    , 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. 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.