DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

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

Started Sep 9, 2016 | Discussions thread
OP Ran Plett Senior Member • Posts: 1,051
Re: Canon 200mm f2 L vs. 200-400mm f4 L
1

RogerZoul wrote:

You think a 200 f/2L is more usefulthan a zoom from 200-400 with a built in matched, 1.4xTC? How do you define useful?

Sure, the f/2 lets in more light, but you still need TCs with the 200 f/2L and there is no zoom. With the 200-400 f/4L, you get 200mm, 400mm, 280mm, and 560mm with unbelievable ease (and speed) in the field. To me, that is useful. You've got to pay to play in this world, and with the 200 f/2L, you'd be doing a lot of swapping in the field to get any serious use from it.

Don't forget that the 200-400 f/4L is very, very sharp, too. There is a reason Canon made this lens.

Thanks for the response. I guess when I say useful, that certainly pertains to my personal needs and I have to remember that everyone's shooting needs are different. With that being said, I find that I shoot a lot more at 200mm than 400mm, so having a 200 f2 would be a lot more useful to me having a 200 2, 280 2.8, and 400 4 for a lot less cost and weight than a 200-400 4. On the other hand, I'm sure if people need the 400 f4 to be nice and sharp, and probably a relatively good 560 f5.6 at the flick of a switch would be nice.

I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way, or if the 200 f2 + 2x teleconvertor would have poor enough IQ not to bother.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow