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

richiedodson wrote:

Ran Plett wrote:

richiedodson wrote:

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.

That right there is a pretty good testimonial. I can imagine that lens paying for itself after a while. The 400mm not so much. That would more or less be a luxury item. Hmmm...

My 200 is an old f/1.8 without IS. I got it about 2 years ago now absolutely mint from a famous store in China (who have good Japanese 2nd-hand contacts) the lens looks like it never got taken out of the case and doesn't even have a single tiny mark on it. I know they are no longer repaired by Canon but I'd certainly recommend trying one if you can find one as it will be cheaper than the 200/2 IS and also the image quality (I have heard) will be sharper than the /2. I'd have no hesitation to use it wide open and with a 1.4 attached it will also be amazing.

I think a 135mm would be nice and will take extenders too. That will be my next lens to be used wide open mostly. I've never tried the 300 f/4 L but could be worth a look. 100-400 II I'm sure would be excellent as the compression look at 400mm resembles bokeh too..

Yes, I'm a big fan of the 135. It's my go to when I'm traveling because it's so small and light, but also not as much of a target as the white 70-200's. With the 2x teleconvertor, it's an ok 270 f4.

Looking at the charts on the-digital-picture, the 200 1.8 does not appear that great. Some people are even saying the 200 f2 is due for an upgrade. When I first wrote this post, I think I wrongly assumed the 200 f2 would be as good as the newer 300 and 400 2.8's. I'm glad you got a good copy though, and sounds like a good deal too, practically unused!