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

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Ran Plett wrote:

I hear you on the 300 2.8. I'm sort of torn between a 200, 300, and 400 DO. I've read that the 300 and 400 DO are not that far off in terms of weight and size, with the 300 being a bit cheaper.

The 300 weighs 2400 g; the 400 DO weighs 2100 g. Maybe that doesn't look like a big difference but you can feel it in the hand - especially if you factor in the extra weight of the 1.4x.

Fair enough. Every gram counts when you're out in the bush.

On the other hand the 300 gives you both 300 mm and 420 mm which could be more practical if you're not looking for out-and-out reach, as a bird photographer might for example. Also the minimum focusing distance of the 400 DO is a slightly limiting 3.3 m; the 300's is a much more useful 2.0 m.

As a previous owner of the 100-400 (first gen.) 400 always seemed just too short. So the DO + 1.4x should do without needing excessive cropping.

I've just always wanted a better 400mm+ option that is brighter than 5.6. So an updated 200 f2 + 2x teleconvertor, 300 2.8 + 1.4x or a 400 DO should do the trick.

I would rule out the 200/2 unless you actually want a 200 mm lens. Either of the other two would be a first class choice.

Got it. I totally agree, unless they update the optics and it pairs decently with the 2x teleconvertor. But yeah it will probably be a long time before I buy that lens.

Also, there's a rumour that the 300 will get an update soon.

That's one rumour I don't believe.

Sorry, not a rumour, but a patent. Equally worthy of a grain of salt, but since that was posted, there have been talks about areas of improvement.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/

Just went through your flickr feed. Very pretty images. Thanks for the advice!