Comparison

[A1original]

Just thought that I would ask: Has anyone had personal experience using/owning the Canon 70~200mm f/2.8 USM II lens and the older Canon 200mm f.2.8 prime lens. I have rented the zoom and was impressed with the image quality, but the physical size and weight were extreme for carrying around an event all day. I haven't rented the prime lens yet but I'm interested to see if the image quality is comparable.

[ebiggs1]

Let me put it this way, I am not a big fan of the EF 200mm f2.8.  I am a huge fan of the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II.

As a matter of fact I believe it to be the best lens on the planet.  So that is where I am coming from just so you know.  The very last lens to leave my hands, when time comes, will be the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II.  It is that good.

It is probably twice as heavy as the prime 200mm.  But the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II is better in every other aspect.  Even in sharpness, IQ, CA, etc.

[A1original]

ebiggs1,thanks for the reply. I quess no one else has any experience with the 200 prime. I guess I will rent one to see for myself. Like I said, the only thing that concerns me is the size, weight, and color of the zoom. I have to agree with you, the IQ of the lens is superb.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@A1original wrote:

ebiggs1,thanks for the reply. I quess no one else has any experience with the 200 prime. I guess I will rent one to see for myself. Like I said, the only thing that concerns me is the size, weight, and color of the zoom. I have to agree with you, the IQ of the lens is superb.

---

Don't sneer at the color. A large black lens on a bright sunny day can generate a lot of heat. Heat makes metal parts expand, and that in turn can cause relative motion of lens elements, which can't be a good thing. It can easily be argued that light-colored lenses are inherently better.

[A1original]

Thanks Bob, not really sneering at the color. It's just a little less intimidating to a lot of people. I do believe that Canon made this lens white just for the reason you bring up. I also think the black lens could be , should I say, snuck into some places the big white lens would be spotted.

[ebiggs1]

Of course the results or product that each lens prodices is up to the user.  But the tests, and I do a lot of my own, shows a pretty substantial increase in sharpness with the 70-200mm f2.8L II over the prime.  For instance on my 1Ds Mk III, it gives 4 more preceptual Mpix than the 200mm prime does.  If that is important to you, it is a BIG DEAL.

[Peter]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&...

I could only find the 200/2,8 II and not the 200/2,8.

[TCampbell]

I have the original EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (not the "II") and do not own the 200mm f/2.8 (but do own the 300mm f/2.8L IS USM).

f/2.8 telephoto lenses are all heavy (all f/2.8 lenses are heavier than their higher focal-ratio counterparts).  This is because in order to achieve a lower focal ratio (larger aperture opening) the whole lens needs a physically wider diameter.  That translates into larger glass elements... which translates into "thicker" glass elements, which results in stronger CA issues, which then requires exotic low-dispersion "glass" and more "corrective" elements to reduce/elminate the CA.  All that adds up to more weight, more weight, and more weight.  So they are heavy lenses... by definition -- but we sure do love the results these lenses can achieve!

Whenver anyone mentions the "weight" issue, I immediately translate that to "comfort".  I didn't like my heavy body and heavy lenses when I had the traditional "neck" strap.  But I switched to a "sling" strap and that made a HUGE difference.  Having the strap on your opposite shoulder  instead of around your neck makes a really big difference with respect to comfrot.  Suddenly the same amount of weight doesn't seem so heavy anymore.

I happen to use a Black Rapid strape, but there are lots of options on the market.