Canon 28-70 and 200 - is the 200 that good?

[aggieastrosfan]

Recently acquired the Canon 200 /2.8L, and I absolutely LOVE it. I find myself using the "foot" zoom just to have an excuse to use it more often!

Today I received the 28-70 f/2.8L I bought used off eBay. I bought this as a replacement for my 17-55, as I'm almost always fully extended on it, and chose the 28-70 over the 24-70 due to cost, since I rarely use the wide end anyway.

I grabbed the 28-70 and started taking some pictures, and was pretty happy with the results. Then I grabbed the 200 to compare, and the results just aren't even close. The 200 was the better lens by a mile.

Am I comparing apples to oranges here, in 200 v. 70/prime v. zoom? Has anyone used both of these lenses that could give me some insight as to if I have a bad copy of the 28-70, or if the 200 is just that good? And if the 200 is just that good, is there anything I can replace the 28-70 with to get comparable IQ? Assuming I can sell it what I paid for it, it would cost me an extra $400 or so to get the 24-70, but I'd gladly pay that to get what I'm getting out of the 200.

TIA for helping a newbie out. I hope to not be a newbie for long!

 

[bratkinson]

Yea, prime L's will generally blow away the competition in IQ. I'm no pro, just an amateur with too many Ls, and found, like you did, that primes out IQ the zooms. Nothing wrong with the zooms, mind you, but the primes are just sharper. Period. From what I've read, the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II comes very close to prime-quality IQ. I have an older 80-200 f2.8 L (magic black pipe) and the IQ is great, but at 200, it's no match for my 200 2.8L prime.

It's also possible that the manufacturing tolerances on your camera body might be on the + side and the lens, also on the + side. Together, it might be a tad not as sharp as possible. If you have micro focus adjust ability on your lens, you could give that a try. Usually, the tolerance differences are so slight, there's no problems at all. Only the pixel peepers might complain about the differences.

 

[Big Mike]

That sounds about what I would expect. Most good prime (non zoom) lenses will be better than most zoom lenses. And that one being an L prime, is likely very good.

Also, note that the 28-70mm F2.8 F2.8 L is a rather old lens. It was replaced by the 24-70mm, which has since been replaced by the 24-70mm II. So the design of it isn't on par with the newest lenses, but it still has a good reputation.
Newer lenses are designed to work better with digital cameras. For example, a sensor is more reflective than film, so more anti-reflective coatings on the back/inside of the lens are being used.

But either way, you will almost always find that a (good) prime lens outperforms a zoom lens.

 

[sovietdoc]

From what I've read, the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II comes very close to prime-quality IQ.

I'd like to find where you read that. Everywhere I read, 70-200 II has the same IQ than the prime if not better especially at 135mm. Just doesn't have the DoF but that's what Photoshop CS6 is for.

 

[aggieastrosfan]

Thanks for the input. I knew it was an older lens when I bought it, but I was about to go on vacation and it was $400 cheaper than getting a 24-70 of similar quality.

Just back from vacation, and did manage to get some better shots with it, as I was able to micro adjust it before I left. It seems to have helped, but I rarely seem to use the zoom on a zoom - I always seem to be shooting from either end of it. I see mostly primes in my future now, question now is which ones to get that will fill my needs. Off to research and ponder...

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, if you don't mind zooming with your feet, prime lenses can give you amazing quality.

I think Canon has a 14mm (ultra wide), more of a specialty lens really.

The 24mm F1.4 L and 35mm F1.4 L are both phenomenal lenses...but fairly expensive. I don't think the other 24mm and 35mm lenses from Canon are worth mentioning.
At 50mm, there are several options. Canon F1.8, F1.4 and F1.2 L. The F1.8 has decent glass, but the rest of it is a toy compared to everything else. The F1.2 L is good, but really, really expensive and not much better than the F1.4. So the F1.4 at less that $500, is usually the recommended choice. Another option is the Sigma 50mm F1.4, which is said to have outstanding quality, and isn't much more than the Canon F1.4 (although, it's a lot larger).
At 85mm, Canon has an F1.8 and the F1.2 L. The F1.2 L has a pretty good reputation and is really loved by bokeh junkies. It's pretty pricey though, especially as the F1.8 is very good at a great price.

There are a few 100mm options. 100mm F2, 100mm F2.8 Macro and a new 100mm F2.8 L IS Macro.
Although, I don't know many photographers who use any of them, but the 135mm F2 L is a favorite of many.