I have recently switched to EOS prime lenses for better clarity and color reproduction - so far the 50mm f 1.4, and the 100mm f2 - I have been very pleased with both. My plan was to buy the 200mm f2.8 L next, but after reading reviews about the 70-200 f2.8 L I am wondering if the zoom would be a better choice.

I shoot mostly indoor & outdoor portraits, scenics/nature (no macro), and I'm starting to do some freelance work - weddings, family portraits, and other events.

I would love the versitility of the zoom...

****but not at the expense of the image quality of the prime 200****.

Can someone compare the quality of these two lenses at 200mm?

-- Derrick L Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), June 01, 2001

Answers

Photodo rates both lenses at 4.1 so you can't go wrong in terms of quality with either one.

I've owned the 200 2.8L for several years and it's one of my favorite lenses, it lives on my EOS 3. It's about half the weight and cost of the 70-200 2.8L, an important consideration for me (I'm a skinny musician). With the 1.4 extender it's a very sharp 280mm F4 lens and is still smaller and lighter than my 300 4L. It has one more advantage over a zoom: fewer lens elements and thus almost zero problems with internal reflections mucking up your image. Internal reflections aren't a problem for most photography, but if you shoot a sunset you'll really appreciate the clarity of the 200 2.8L over a zoom.

-- Puppy Face (dogieface@aol.com), June 02, 2001.

Something else to consider. The 200 f/2.8 range when shooting with a prime 200mm is a specialized tool I would leave to something with macro capability (300 f/4 L IS) or with amazing DOF performance (200 f/1.8L). The constant aperture zooms are built to rival the prime lenses. Or else everyone wouldn't shoot with them. Weddings and other events are a perfect place for the #3 zoom. Plus the #1 and #2!!!! But I can't buy all 3 at once. I don't think you could see a difference between the #3 zoom and the rpime 200mm. Plus, you really can't beat having that second ring on the lens. It's on my 3 about 70% of the time. My Elan IIe holds the other 3 primes I use for weddings. ONE AT A TIME!!!!! Don't forget something in the 24mm range for big groups.

BTW, why did you choose the 100 f/2 over the 85 f/1.8? Just curious.

-- Colin Miller (ckmiller@pond.net), June 02, 2001.

I can't compare the 200mm to the zoom because I don't own the zoom. The image quality of the 200mm is slightly better than the 100mm f/2.0, especially in color rendition and contrast. Sharpness is about the same, with the 200mm enjoying a very slight edge. It provides very high image quality overall and is a great value in the Canon line. But it's a specialized lens. Finding the right distance from the subject is something you'll have to explore. And if you're shooting handheld, you will never see the advantage it has over the 70-200mm zoom. I suggest the zoom for its versatility in covering events, the prime for landscapes and other.

-- Willie Ju (wju@mediaone.net), June 02, 2001.

Thanks all. Now I want both lenses. Given the quality of the zoom, it is probably the smarter choice because it is more useful. But I still enjoy taking my time on speciality shots for myself - the scenics. Perhaps those are better left to the 50 f1.4 and 100 f2 anyway. The other factor is the cost. Hmmm. I gotta spend it if that's the way to go. In case you were wondering (and since you brought it up, Colin) I also have the Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 for the wider angles. It does a pretty good job on my scenics if I am careful with the aperture, and is fine for group shots and such. I bought it along with the Sigma 28-300 as my first pair of lenses for my EOS 3. The big zoom now resides on my wife's Rebel 2000. And to answer Colin's question: I needed a portrait lens and couldn't afford the 135 - I just prefer the longer lens.

Sorry for rambling... thanks for the input.

Derrick

-- Derrick L Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), June 03, 2001.