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

Victor Engel wrote:

richiedodson wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

Thanks partially to your post (although I've been considering the move for years), there has been a hit to my wallet. My 200mm f/1.8 (allegedly in like new condition) is in transit to my location.

I think you will absolutely fall in love with it Victor. The only negative thing I could say about it is the balance (of course we already expect the big weight) - a lot of people buy a long foot extender to centre the balance better

I've already been scheming on how to do this. Another option would be to manufacture an extender that connects to my camera, something that would make sense if I stick with one model of camera. Also on my shopping list now is a monopod. I've never owned one before, opting for a tripod or just my arms.

I have always owned an overly-engineered monopod which feels more like a solid steel club and is nice to carry while walking back to the car at night loaded with gear for protection... but at one stage I purchased one of these MeFoto RoadTrip: http://www.mefoto.com/uk/products/roadtrip.aspx which is a nice travel tripod that easily converts to a monopod. I replaced the head with a better one for tripod use but it's a very good and light but strong tripod and a good little monopod when needed & converts either way in about 30 seconds. I also purchased a smaller centre column so that I have a better option to get lower to the ground for tripod use. It isn't my main tripod of course but a very versatile and reasonably priced product that packs very small.

- but it might quickly become your favourite lens.

That honor currently goes to my 135L.

I don't own one, but because I love the 200f/1.8 so much - it will be my next lens as I think they will compliment each-other well. I've wanted to own the 135 for ages.

I'm certainly interested to hear your comments after a few days playing with yours.

I would say mine is about as sharp right across the (full) frame when at f/1.8 as a 70-200f/2.8ISII is in the centre at f/2.8 and even more noticeable when at f/2.0.

I don't own that lens, but borrowed one the last time I was hired for a wedding.

I was lucky enough to be one of the first to try the 70-200f/2.8ISII before it was released while I was working the Australian open tennis - but actually I didn't like the sample at the time (maybe a pre-production copy) I kept blowing out images with it in the sun where my older 70-200f/2.8IS never did.

I have heard it is sharper than the 200f/2IS due to the lead glass. My 300f/2.8IS is sharp of course - but I certainly haven't noticed a sharpness difference between the 200 and much newer 300. I prefer the look of the images from the 200 which pop and have amazing colour. I just don't get much use with my 200-400 as I don't do big field sports much. I used my 200 for almost an entire conference in a dark auditorium last week (along with mixed focal lengths for varying angle supply to the client) and the images were great - almost paid for itself all-over-again!

My biggest worry so far has been the size of the lens - not because of the heft needed, but because of the distraction it would cause. I'm sure that would depend on the setting, of course. I'd considered renting one in order to test it out, but I decided that by purchasing one, I can take my time with it and should still be able to sell it if I decide I no longer want it. Probably cheaper, in fact, to do that than to rent one, if one is even available to rent. No, that would probably be a 200 f/2 IS.

A lot of people will think it's a 300 f/2.8 as they are a similar size. Without the hood attached it is very much less noticeable but there is then no protection to that beautiful big heavy glass front-end.

-- hide signature --

Victor Engel