Canon 200mm f2 L vs. 200-400mm f4 L

Ran Plett wrote:

Just curious if anyone here has looked into a 200 f2 L vs. a 200-400 f4 L.

I would think that a 200 f2 would be more useful, and if you wanted extra reach, you could add a 2x teleconverter, or even a 1.4x AND 2x (which I already have shot with my 70-200 2.8 IS II, with mediocre results). I think you have to add an extension tube in between the teleconverters. So you could easily get a poor man's (or lady's) 400 / f4 or 540 / f5.6 with reasonable quality image quality from a native 200mm prime.

The main difference between these two would be the zoom / not needing to fumble with teleconverters, because damn, those can be awkward, the extra weight, and the cost, with the 200/2 costing $5300 less (almost half the price)!

I just love the idea of a 200 f2 for low light, and with modern high res. camera sensors, cropping gives you quite a bit of extra 'reach.'

Obviously it depends on what you are shooting, and generally, it seems like I have the time to fumble with teleconvertors, unlike sports 'togs that need to be zooming a lot.

Also, with the $5300 savings, you could very easily afford to pair it with an 80D and get more or less an effective 640mm f4.

Any thoughts? Would stacking teleconvertors still be too weak with a base 200mm?

using extender with these canon white primes to cut corner defeats the whole purpose of having them! i do use TC 1.4x/2.0x with my 300 f2.8II but the photos are not near the same quality as if used bare lens!