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

Ran Plett wrote:

Just curious if anyone here has looked into a 200 f2 L vs. a 200-400 f4 L.

I would think that a 200 f2 would be more useful, and if you wanted extra reach, you could add a 2x teleconverter, or even a 1.4x AND 2x (which I already have shot with my 70-200 2.8 IS II, with mediocre results). I think you have to add an extension tube in between the teleconverters. So you could easily get a poor man's (or lady's) 400 / f4 or 540 / f5.6 with reasonable quality image quality from a native 200mm prime.

The main difference between these two would be the zoom / not needing to fumble with teleconverters, because damn, those can be awkward, the extra weight, and the cost, with the 200/2 costing $5300 less (almost half the price)!

I just love the idea of a 200 f2 for low light, and with modern high res. camera sensors, cropping gives you quite a bit of extra 'reach.'

Obviously it depends on what you are shooting, and generally, it seems like I have the time to fumble with teleconvertors, unlike sports 'togs that need to be zooming a lot.

Also, with the $5300 savings, you could very easily afford to pair it with an 80D and get more or less an effective 640mm f4.

Any thoughts? Would stacking teleconvertors still be too weak with a base 200mm?

using extender with these canon white primes to cut corner defeats the whole purpose of having them! i do use TC 1.4x/2.0x with my 300 f2.8II but the photos are not near the same quality as if used bare lens!

RogerZoul wrote:

You think a 200 f/2L is more usefulthan a zoom from 200-400 with a built in matched, 1.4xTC? How do you define useful?

Sure, the f/2 lets in more light, but you still need TCs with the 200 f/2L and there is no zoom. With the 200-400 f/4L, you get 200mm, 400mm, 280mm, and 560mm with unbelievable ease (and speed) in the field. To me, that is useful. You've got to pay to play in this world, and with the 200 f/2L, you'd be doing a lot of swapping in the field to get any serious use from it.

Don't forget that the 200-400 f/4L is very, very sharp, too. There is a reason Canon made this lens.

Thanks for the response. I guess when I say useful, that certainly pertains to my personal needs and I have to remember that everyone's shooting needs are different. With that being said, I find that I shoot a lot more at 200mm than 400mm, so having a 200 f2 would be a lot more useful to me having a 200 2, 280 2.8, and 400 4 for a lot less cost and weight than a 200-400 4. On the other hand, I'm sure if people need the 400 f4 to be nice and sharp, and probably a relatively good 560 f5.6 at the flick of a switch would be nice.

I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way, or if the 200 f2 + 2x teleconvertor would have poor enough IQ not to bother.

1Dx4me wrote:

Ran Plett wrote:

Just curious if anyone here has looked into a 200 f2 L vs. a 200-400 f4 L.

I would think that a 200 f2 would be more useful, and if you wanted extra reach, you could add a 2x teleconverter, or even a 1.4x AND 2x (which I already have shot with my 70-200 2.8 IS II, with mediocre results). I think you have to add an extension tube in between the teleconverters. So you could easily get a poor man's (or lady's) 400 / f4 or 540 / f5.6 with reasonable quality image quality from a native 200mm prime.

The main difference between these two would be the zoom / not needing to fumble with teleconverters, because damn, those can be awkward, the extra weight, and the cost, with the 200/2 costing $5300 less (almost half the price)!

I just love the idea of a 200 f2 for low light, and with modern high res. camera sensors, cropping gives you quite a bit of extra 'reach.'

Obviously it depends on what you are shooting, and generally, it seems like I have the time to fumble with teleconvertors, unlike sports 'togs that need to be zooming a lot.

Also, with the $5300 savings, you could very easily afford to pair it with an 80D and get more or less an effective 640mm f4.

Any thoughts? Would stacking teleconvertors still be too weak with a base 200mm?

using extender with these canon white primes to cut corner defeats the whole purpose of having them! i do use TC 1.4x/2.0x with my 300 f2.8II but the photos are not near the same quality as if used bare lens!

Thanks for letting me know. Do you find it better just to crop your 300 2.8 images then? I have *relatively* good results from using a 2x teleconvertor on my 135 f2 L. Much better than cropping (edit: not nearly as bad as using a 2x teleconvertor on the 70-200 2.8).

Ray Chen wrote:

I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way, or if the 200 f2 + 2x teleconvertor would have poor enough IQ not to bother.

I personally do not like the 200 IS + 2x extender. Even I think the image is sharp enough, there is a lot of contrast loss wide open. I guess you can stop it down, but then you are most likely to be better off with a 100-400 IS II. To me, the 200 is a specialty lens. Shooting it at f/2 naked is the strength of this lens, and that is how I use mine.

+1

i do use my tc 2.0x III on my canon 300 f2.8II and works beautifully from time to time but i sure like to use my 300 by itself because the result turns out awesome!

Ray Chen wrote:

I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way, or if the 200 f2 + 2x teleconvertor would have poor enough IQ not to bother.

I personally do not like the 200 IS + 2x extender. Even I think the image is sharp enough, there is a lot of contrast loss wide open. I guess you can stop it down, but then you are most likely to be better off with a 100-400 IS II. To me, the 200 is a specialty lens. Shooting it at f/2 naked is the strength of this lens, and that is how I use mine.

I see. Guess I'll have to rent it and see if it's too much. The 100-400 is a much cheaper / smaller option for the reach but I just want faster than 5.6! Wish there was a 400mm f4 L.

I have done extensive testing of the four version II and III, 1.4x and 2x converters and conluded that I don't appreciate the results of the 2x converters, even on one of the absolutely sharpest lenses that Canon produces; the 300L II. Cropping using a 1.4x III converter gives me the exact same resolution on a 5D mkIII as using the 2x III converter.

objektivtest.se has done somme great MTF tests of the Canon converters and conludes that with the version III converters on an FF camera, the 300L II looses around 10% MTF (contrast/resolution) using the 1.4x and around 20% using the 2x converter.

My 70-200L II, 100-400L II, 300L II and 800L all produce really great results with the 1.4x III converter on both FF and crop.

ffabrici wrote:

I have done extensive testing of the four version II and III, 1.4x and 2x converters and conluded that I don't appreciate the results of the 2x converters, even on one of the absolutely sharpest lenses that Canon produces; the 300L II. Cropping using a 1.4x III converter gives me the exact same resolution on a 5D mkIII as using the 2x III converter.

objektivtest.se has done somme great MTF tests of the Canon converters and conludes that with the version III converters on an FF camera, the 300L II looses around 10% MTF (contrast/resolution) using the 1.4x and around 20% using the 2x converter.

My 70-200L II, 100-400L II, 300L II and 800L all produce really great results with the 1.4x III converter on both FF and crop.

That's really interesting. No doubt there would be a loss in resolution, but when you say using the teleconvertors gives a loss of 10% and 20% resolution, would that be calculated after the increase in FL has been taken into account?
Now I've got to go and test my lenses to see if there really is any point to having that 2x teleconvertor. If not, I'll sell it.

RogerZoul wrote:

Ran Plett wrote:

Ray Chen wrote:

I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way, or if the 200 f2 + 2x teleconvertor would have poor enough IQ not to bother.

I personally do not like the 200 IS + 2x extender. Even I think the image is sharp enough, there is a lot of contrast loss wide open. I guess you can stop it down, but then you are most likely to be better off with a 100-400 IS II. To me, the 200 is a specialty lens. Shooting it at f/2 naked is the strength of this lens, and that is how I use mine.

I see. Guess I'll have to rent it and see if it's too much. The 100-400 is a much cheaper / smaller option for the reach but I just want faster than 5.6! Wish there was a 400mm f4 L.

There is. It is called the Canon EF 400mm f/4 IS DO II. And it is wonderfully sharp with great characteristics.

Yeah, right after I wrote that, I went and looked into the 400 DO, in case it would change my mind about DO lens characteristics. It does look exceptional. My understanding of diffractive optics was based on the older version and especially the mediocre 70-300. Since then I never gave it a second thought. But apart from the cost, it looks great.

Do you have one?

ed rader wrote:

serious photogs using in the field. must be a slow day in the cubicle?

Yeah it was a little slow that day. Was it also slow under the bridge, hence your troll response?

Rey66 wrote:

Ran Plett wrote:

Just curious if anyone here has looked into a 200 f2 L vs. a 200-400 f4 L.

I would think that a 200 f2 would be more useful, and if you wanted extra reach, you could add a 2x teleconverter, or even a 1.4x AND 2x (which I already have shot with my 70-200 2.8 IS II, with mediocre results). I think you have to add an extension tube in between the teleconverters. So you could easily get a poor man's (or lady's) 400 / f4 or 540 / f5.6 with reasonable quality image quality from a native 200mm prime.

The main difference between these two would be the zoom / not needing to fumble with teleconverters, because damn, those can be awkward, the extra weight, and the cost, with the 200/2 costing $5300 less (almost half the price)!

I just love the idea of a 200 f2 for low light, and with modern high res. camera sensors, cropping gives you quite a bit of extra 'reach.'

Obviously it depends on what you are shooting, and generally, it seems like I have the time to fumble with teleconvertors, unlike sports 'togs that need to be zooming a lot.

Also, with the $5300 savings, you could very easily afford to pair it with an 80D and get more or less an effective 640mm f4.

Any thoughts? Would stacking teleconvertors still be too weak with a base 200mm?

I have the Yongnuo TC 2X and 200F2 L, you can check these images and see if its worth it or not. The sweet spot is F5.6 to F8. But F4 is usable. The 200mm is my primary lens, it fits with my shooting style, once in a while I like a macro like image without getting too close to the subject, about 6ft away. Then the 42MP crop capability of Sony A7R2 will bring them closer..You can check more photos from my flikr account for more samples. The 200mm F2 L is very addictive to use.

Thanks for sharing, those are quite nice! I see you're stopping down to f8 with the 2x attached. That's what I was hoping to avoid, thinking that the 200 f2 would be stellar enough to be able to use a 2x teleconvertor wide open with better IQ than say a 70-200. According to the resolution charts on the the-digital-picture, the 200 f2 L does not really work well compared to a 300 2.8 L or even a 100-400 II (bare) as someone mentioned earlier. My goal was to get a bit more reach at f4. So I'm still torn between a 400 DO or a 100-400 / and 200 f2 L combo. I think the 200 might be overkill if someone has a 135 f2 and 70-200 2.8, so right now, that DO is looking really good!

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?

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...