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

richiedodson wrote:

I have the 200-400 and also a 200f/1.8.

I understand what you mean about more useful.

My 200 1.8 is absolutely outstanding and although heavy, it gets far more use than my 200-400 which is too big to carry around for general stuff and only gets a show when at big professional events.

I find the 200mm length very good for so many types of scenarios - corporate dinners, tennis, bike races, weddings, conferences, portraits - even family picnic type settings etc. whereas the 200-400 can really only be used long outdoors.

Both give amazing image quality and have their strengths but I get far more use out of my 200 - which also means it has paid itself off many times over.

I guess I might put a 1.4X on the 200 possibly - but its strength is incredible bokeh without one - and isolating a subject at f1.8 from a distance means it doesn't matter about cropping into the image because the focused subject is so prominent anyway.

I have a 300f/2.8IS and also a 70-200f/2.8IS. Of course the 70-200 gets more use than anything else because it's a general walk-around size - but the 200f/1.8 gets a lot more use than the 300f/2.8IS because the focal length is so much more 'useful' and the bokeh is stunning. IS at that length is not a big deal at all as at f/2 there is usually plenty of light coming into the lens to increase shutter speed.

Thanks so much, that's a lot of help. I almost settled on a 400mm DO, as usual, having second thoughts. Would love to have both the 200 and 400, but can't see that being practical for my style of traveling as light as possible. I was just hoping the 200 f2 IS would be a swiss army knife of lenses in that it is much smaller, lighter, cheaper than the 200-400, still offers f2, and a host of other reasons you mentioned above. But sadly, according to the-digital-picture's lens charts, the 200mm doesn't do to well with teleconvertors. Maybe if they update it again?