zoom vs prime (similar lenses)

[prodigy2k7]

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
verses
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

So, is there any difference between these two when the zoom lens is extened to 200mm?

I mean difference in quality (prime is probably sharper), but any other differences?

Both L type, both F/2.8

Both USM, but would the zoom be slower at autofocus? or are they bout the same at 200mm?

Any other differences? etc etc...

 

[Garbz]

The 70-200 performs worst at 200mm. In vignetting and CA too. Check out the www.photozone.de tests on both of them.

 

[Village Idiot]

But the 70-200 has IS, and is one of Canon's fastest focusing zoom lenses.

 

[usayit]

Still trying to figure out where to spend cash eh Prodigy? hehehe lol

You are essentially asking a zoom versus prime question. In general, prime will out perform the zoom in all cases but one.... a varying focal length(zoom).

Think of this as a spectrum between "Convenience" and "Image Quality".

Convenience = inexpensive zooms with high focal range
Image quality = expensive single focal length lenses with high image quality.

Somewhere in the middle are high quality zooms that offer varying compromises of both convenience and image quality.

So you need to figure out what fits your needs.... the absolute IQ of a prime or the mobility/convenience of a zoom. Only you can answer that question.

For example...

Wildlife, things in motion, walks, I'll take a 24-105L. Easy, compact, good IQ but most importantly it is a zoom.

For portraiture of adults, the subject isn't moving, I control the pace, and I am not too concerned with weight. I'll pack a 24L, 50, 85, and 135L primes for uncompromised image quality.

Both lenses are reviewed on www.thedigitalpicture.com. Considering that most people like zooms AND the 70-200mm f2.8L is one of Canon's best IQ zooms, I'd be leaning towards recommending the 70-200 f2.8L.

 

[usayit]

Oh yeh.. another thing to consider is price. IQ wise, a prime gives far better value than a zoom; ie even inexpensive non-L primes will be at par or outperform the most expensive zooms.

I have to say though... your recent posts really don't give us information to work off. You usually focus on $$$ or AversusB type threads. There is very little content as to what you want, need, or plan to use the lenses for... very little "photographic" content. Kinda makes it difficult for people to give their opinions and comments.

photography is a balance of equipment and skill. Can't just work off one side of the equation.


Btw... focusing "speed" is a function of both camera and lens. both lenses you mentioned focus fairly quickly. But they'll AF better on a 1 series for example.


Also, one has IS. to IS or not-IS is a completely different topic. When shooting with telephotos, I prefer a monopod or tripod.. IS is another convenience thing that you pay $$$ for.... IMO, it is a band aid to use when using a support is not possible.


I thought your budget was UNDER $1000...?????

 

[Village Idiot]

The 70-200 is rather short as far as telephoto zooms go. Calling IS a bandaid is a little misleading. I'm rarely shooting in a position that using a tripod over the IS function would benefit me, noticably shooting models, in doors, panning for sports, etc..

 

[prodigy2k7]

I am mostly looking for a sports lens.

I am a little awkward at getting a telephoto prime because then im stuck at that, im not exactly sure how much of a focal length I need, for horse racing i do about 100 or 120mm i believe, but horses are fairly large animals so they can fill the frame a little easier..

But when it comes to soccer or indoor hocket, i kinda need a zoom for close ups or far away shots, and hocket is indoor so I planned on getting F/2.8

The canon 100-400 would be better for soccer and hocket i think wouldnt it? but it doesnt have F/2.5 it has a smaller aperture

so i still lean towards the 70-200