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?

I have the Yongnuo TC 2X and 200F2 L, you can check these images and see if its worth it or not. The sweet spot is F5.6 to F8. But F4 is usable. The 200mm is my primary lens, it fits with my shooting style, once in a while I like a macro like image without getting too close to the subject, about 6ft away. Then the 42MP crop capability of Sony A7R2 will bring them closer..You can check more photos from my flikr account for more samples. The 200mm F2 L is very addictive to use.