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

NottsPhoto wrote:

Ran Plett wrote:

NottsPhoto wrote:

if your thinking of the 400 do I would just like to say we have had several of the mk1's over the years... and it's still in my kit now.

Ive had, for comparison, several 300 2.8's in various guises.... several 500 f4 and 4.5's... several 70-200 2.8's.... and I have used quiet a bit the older nikon 200 f2.... I no longer do a lot of sport... but did a lot of cricket and F'ball over the years...

IMHO the 400 f 4 DO is the finest all round long lens of the lot. it's not the best at any ONE thing... but as a total package, combined with its weight... it is by far the most useable long lens ive owned, and I will never sell it!

the 200f2 is a killer football lens as its very fast, and has a very narrow DOF for shots fairly close in, and combined with the 1.4 gives a 3002.8 at almost the same size and weight....but in reality it's not long enough for more general field sport.... and it's weight, like all of the big non DO lenses makes it a PITA to carry around...

the 400 we use for almost everything... it's a great alrounder for most sport, even cricket, and the weight means it's no issue to carry around for a day, and can easily be hand held. (I tend to leave the collar off unless I'm going to be shooting video with it...)

I do use the 1.4 mk2 tc on it but i don't like converters so avoid it..... putting it on the7dmk2 is my prefered option.

The downsides are the mk1 is not as sharp wide open as the latest lenses.... and a faster aperture would give a better DOF at that length..

but really, it's a great lens, and because it's so light, you will use it morel

That's quite an endorsement. Thanks for sharing your experience. I totally get that about the 400 2.8. It's so big that it somewhat limits usefulness, especially for those that like to travel a lot lighter. The DO seems to check a lot off the list, so I'll probably get that unless they update the 200 f2 within the next year.

Do you find the quality is better on the 7d as an effective 640mm 5.6, vs a 560mm 5.6 with the TC?

yes, on your last point, adding the converter to the lens results in a noticable drop in sharpness. (but this is the mk1 and the mk2 converter.... so results may be better on the newer version) I can't see how adding more glass to the back of the lens would have anything but a bad impact...

otoh of course you have the other compromises with a crop chip... but at least there is no degradation of the basic image...

I tested the canon 1.4x II with YN 1.4x III and the YN is much sharper optically, but unfortunately the AF will not work on A7rII so I returned it.. But I can imagine it will be the same with the canon version.. Just for reference..

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58547911