What would you choose at 200mm: Aperture or Zoom

[Sendide]

Hi dear fellas,
paycheck time and , of course, "L" time :wink:
I've been in a canon store truying on my 10D with the coming lenses :
70-200 F/4 (nice and light :D), F4 though
70-200 F/2.8 : fast but HEAVY :?: , which makes the 2.8 almost useless without IS (IS is out of reach so I didn't even bother to try it).
Canon prime : 200mm f/2.8, light, slightly sharper, no zoming of course.

my question please : if you were "me" : take a look at the lenses I have below, would you go for the 70-200 f/4 or the prime 200mm L II f/2.8 (which are almost same cost) ?

enlighten me please :?:
thanks in advance

[robertwgross]

Not enough information.

There are some members here who have a distinct preference for prime lenses. For example, one guy who shoots motor sports. He probably knows that if he shoots from one point toward one particular curve, then the racer will be the right size to fill up a frame at one particular focal length. So, he opts for a prime lens. The same sort of shooters often go for the better aperture lenses.

There are other members who need to do a lot with a single zoom lens, so having something to cover a wide range of zoom is a big deal. For what some of us do, we simply can't be changing lenses every minute.

Some of us simply can't afford really fast lenses in any telephoto focal length. Or, if we could, they might be pretty heavy.

It's all a matter of compromise. It depends on what you want to shoot.

---Bob Gross---

[Sendide]

thanks robert,
I mainly shoot portraits, landscape and macro. the 17-40 is my choice for the landscape, 100mm macro for macros, I do have the 75-300 range covered by the "non L"lens cited below. that's wy I'm wondering what would be more beneficial in your opinion and with your experience in the field: prime or zoom (again : take in consideration the lenses I own so far).
regards

Khalid

[robertwgross]

I'm biased. I own only one prime lens, and I never use it. But that is only one opinion.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

I can't just answer this either...

My question would be "Where am I going to use this?"

When I got my first 200mm... I knew exactly waht I needed it for.

It was to be my long indoor lens.. and thus I NEEDED the 2.8

But.. for me 200mm was too long to have as a prime.. (in hindsite the 135mm f/2 prime might have solved this)

Anyway I needed the speed so I got the f/2.8 aperture.. because I also needed the ZOOM that''s what I got too..

But if I neede a 200mm for out door use?

Then the 70-200mm f/4 would have done the trick.

[Sendide]

CDS, was the zoom you gor the IS or non IS version of 2.8?
most of people in this forum seem to jump from the f4 to the f2.8 IS. I can probably afford the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS, but then it felt quite heavy to me and hard to control handheld !! any experience with that lens?

[CyberDyneSystems]

I actually stuck my tow into pricey lens territory slowly...

..so I started with the excellent Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8

I did eventually "upgrade" to the Canon lens WITH IS.... but only because I got it for about $650.00 off of retail...

Otherwise I'd still have the Sigma.

At first I was skeptical.. but .. IS is nice :mrgreen:

[Sendide]

OK , as usual , couple days to investigate this new proposal : Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
it never stops does it :wink:

[msvadi]

From what I've heard, 100mm f/2.8 macro can work nicely as a portrait lens. For portraits, 200mm is, probably, too much, given the cropping factor. You are not going to shoot landscapes wide open anyway, so, I think, in your case the choice is clear: 70-200 f/4.

On the other hand, if you can afford 70-200 f/2.8, then I think it makes sense to go for it. You'll get both, zoom and aperture. Just try to adjust to its weight and size.

[Sendide]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :idea: :roll: :roll: :!: :!:

[stuartf287]

The Canon 200mm F2.8L lens is one of the undervalued jewels of the line IMHO. I bought a used Mark I for about $500 and love it. In comparison with the 70-200 F4L, advantage goes to the prime in terms of aperture, sharpness, weight and convenience. Price is a toss-up. That leaves only flexibility squarely on the zoom's side. If you have 85mm, 100mm and 135mm otherwise covered to your satisfaction (by the macro and 75-300), I say go with the prime. If not, the zoom is your obvious 1st choice.

[Andy_T]

When I got my first 200mm... I knew exactly waht I needed it for.

It was to be my long indoor lens.. and thus I NEEDED the 2.8



CDS, when you say that you use the 200 mm as your 'long indoor lens' ...


... you should also mention that you work in a theater :lol:

It *might* be a tad long for home use.

Maybe they let you try out both lenses ... the 70-200 might certainly be interesting for you to add to your portrait lenses, but the question is whether f/4 is sufficient for DOF control ... you'd have to try is out.

You could, of course, at about the same money also get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which would give you both.

Best regards,
Andy

[defordphoto]

My $.02: The 70-200 f/2.8 is a very useful lens with or without IS. You'll amaze yourself how quickly you adapt to a so-called, weighty lens and then you'll not even need IS unless shooting especially slow speeds. Especially if you have Big-Ed attached to your 10D.

[Olegis]

70-200 F/2.8 : fast but HEAVY :?: , which makes the 2.8 almost useless without IS (IS is out of reach so I didn't even bother to try it).

Why useless ? I use it with a great level of success in many low-light situations - just make sure that the shutter speed is not lower than 1/320s handheld or 1/60s with monopod, and you'll do fine.
This week I'm going to shoot at a local food festival which will take place at the evening hours - I'll post some photographs then. Meanwhile you can see some low-light examples (none of them are post-processed in any way except of resizing and rotating) taken with the 10D and the 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) :



http://www.pbase.com/image/29530686.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/29530677.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/29530659.jpg

The rest of it (along with the full EXIF info) can be found here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/kikar_rabin&page=all).

[Tom W]

I don't have the Canon "L", but I've got the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and it is a great lens. I'm not going to steer you away from Canon, but I do want to tell you that in my opinion, the f/2.8 is worthwhile with or without IS. It will give you that extra stop on the low-light end that can allow you to bump up the shutter speed to where you can stop action and overcome shake. You can always use a tripod or monopod or lean against a wall or chair, but you can get good sharp images with the heavy lens at relatively low shutter speeds.

Of course, IS is helpful, but if you can't afford it, you can still get an excellent lens without having to splurge for it. Plus, these high-end lenses really hold their value - you can sell it a couple of years down the road for a very good price and pick up an IS version if you need one.

IMHO, go for the 2.8.

[msvadi]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :idea: :roll: :roll: :!: :!:

Seriously, if you can afford 70-200 2.8. go for it. It sounds like one of the best 35mm SLRs lens ever made. I wish I could afford it. (and I like when the lens is big and heavy ;) )

concerning 200mm 2.8 vs 70-200 f/4. from your experience with 75-300, how often do you take pictures in 75-135 range? And hwo often do you wish it were faster?

[msvadi]

these high-end lenses really hold their value - you can sell it a couple of years down the road for a very good price

I absolutely agree with that. I'm checking the ebay 10 times a day, trying to get some quality lens for a good price. And I see that it alsmost does not make sense to buy the lens used. For example, a couple of days ago 200mm f2.8 used, several years old, but claimed to be in mint condition, was sold for $500, only $100 off the new copy price at B&H.

[CyberDyneSystems]

When I got my first 200mm... I knew exactly waht I needed it for.

It was to be my long indoor lens.. and thus I NEEDED the 2.8



CDS, when you say that you use the 200 mm as your 'long indoor lens' ...


... you should also mention that you work in a theater :lol:

It *might* be a tad long for home use....

Best regards,
Andy

Good point.. maybe I should have said that :)

Yes.. 200mm is the absolute maximum focal length I ever need to work in my particular theatre..

200mm NOT for in your home.. but excellent for concert shots when you can't be in the first row!

I can certainly attest to the fact that 200mm @ f/2.8 is VERY usefull with or without IS.

IS is one of those things that one can certainly live without.. but is also certainly handy to have.

I've got the "cream of the crop Flagship Canon"... but I still miss my Sigma.. it was lighter and black.. :)

[Tom W]

these high-end lenses really hold their value - you can sell it a couple of years down the road for a very good price

I absolutely agree with that. I'm checking the ebay 10 times a day, trying to get some quality lens for a good price. And I see that it alsmost does not make sense to buy the lens used. For example, a couple of days ago 200mm f2.8 used, several years old, but claimed to be in mint condition, was sold for $500, only $100 off the new copy price at B&H.

Well, that's because the used lens is generally as good as a new lens. If my older lenses are any indication, these things will last for decades, so if its a couple of years old, it still has an enormous lifetime ahead of it.

[Tom W]

....I've got the "cream of the crop Flagship Canon"... but I still miss my Sigma.. it was lighter and black.. :)

Heh heh! You can't have it back. ;)

Well, if the price were right, maybe you could. IS does sound interesting....

[DaveG]

Hi dear fellas,
paycheck time and , of course, "L" time :wink:
I've been in a canon store truying on my 10D with the coming lenses :
70-200 F/4 (nice and light :D), F4 though
70-200 F/2.8 : fast but HEAVY :?: , which makes the 2.8 almost useless without IS (IS is out of reach so I didn't even bother to try it).
Canon prime : 200mm f/2.8, light, slightly sharper, no zoming of course.

my question please : if you were "me" : take a look at the lenses I have below, would you go for the 70-200 f/4 or the prime 200mm L II f/2.8 (which are almost same cost) ?

enlighten me please :?:
thanks in advance

I would say that the 70-200 f2.8 L is far from useless without IS. It is useless without some kind of support, but so is the IS lens. Never mind the stability issue - it's the weight! Just try holding the thing to your eye for more than a few seconds! With any of these lenses - including the 70-200 f4 - I cannot over recommend a monopod. Then you get the cheap man's IS and you can spend a lot more time concentrating on your subject, not how much pain you're in.

I like speed in a lens and often make my decisions based on that. That one stop extra shutterspeed may make the difference to getting the shot or not, and to me, that's worth buying. A zoom also gives me incredible flexibility so I'd vote for the 70-200 f2.8 non IS, and I did since I own one. You'll be able to use (well, maintain AF) with the 1.4 extender and the 2.8 lens, and you won't with the f4.

With the 200mm f2.8 you'll be able to use the extender, but you also get locked into an effective focal length of 320 mm, and that's very long. I mean it has it's place but it wouldn't be something that you would be constantly reaching for.

[Sendide]

thanks dave,
fair enough
regards
Khalid

[Sendide]

thanks dave,
fair enough
regards
Khalid