What is better Canon 70-200 L f/4 or 200mm L f/2.8

[jimchapin468]

I am trying to decide which one of these to buy; I have narrowed it down to these 2. I will be using them on a Canon 20D. Anyone have any experience with these lenses? What do you recommend? I have a 24-70L right now but I am going to need something to take pictures of my boy playing sports and etc... My budget is around 700.00. Jimmy

[Andy_T]

With a budget of 700, the 200/4.0 will be the better of the two.

Still, if you can somehow stretch it, a used 70-200/2.8 would be an even better companion for your 24-70/2.8.

Best regards,
Andy

[gasrocks]

Which do you need more: a zoom or low light ability?

[formula4speed]

With a budget of 700, the 200/4.0 will be the better of the two.

Still, if you can somehow stretch it, a used 70-200/2.8 would be an even better companion for your 24-70/2.8.

Best regards,
Andy

If you are saying the f/4 is a better lens, I'd disagree. If you are saying it would better match what he has, that may be true depending on how he is using it. For some people being able to zoom in and out is second nature and they'd have a hard time without it, but I prefer the extra stop in speed and as a bonus the primes tend to be a touch sharper. If you think you are always going to be on the 200 end on the zoom, I'd go for the 2.8. They are both very good lenses, I think you'll be happy with either one.

[Sean-Mcr]

Optically the two are identical, it's the extra stop, and only the extra stop that gives the 2.8 the edge. But then that's only if you need the extra stop, and that would be indoors (as long as it's well lit) and during overcast days and events at night with floodlights ect

But if it's during the day outside with decent light, then the F4 will more then do the job

[Keiffer]

Has anyone done a comparison of the two? I would like to see pictures...The ultimate decision maker.

[Sean-Mcr]

Well you can't really compare them like for like as they're not the same aperture, from F4 they're said to be identical. What should be the thing that makes their mind up is what and where they'll be shooting.

[Andy_T]

With a budget of 700, the 200/4.0 will be the better of the two

If you are saying the f/4 is a better lens, I'd disagree.

I agree with you. It is not the better lens.
But it fits the budget better :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Andy_T]

Let me add a third alternative ... the 200/2.8 L.

It's a prime lens (it does not zoom) and offers 70-200/2.8 performance for the 70-200/4.0 price.

As a compromise, you have to move your feet to zoom more :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Skippy29]

Did no one read the title of this thread?
He IS deciding between a 70-200L f/4 and a 200L f/2.8

And I'll throw my $.02 in. I've got the 70-200 f/4, and friend has the 200L 2.8. He wishes he had the zoom over the extra stop. I used the prime and I totally agree.
the 70-200L f/4 is an amazing lens, I would even put it up against a 70-200L f/2.8

[cdhender]

Well you can't really compare them like for like as they're not the same aperture, from F4 they're said to be identical. What should be the thing that makes their mind up is what and where they'll be shooting.

Just compare them at equal apertures. BTW, the prime is sharper:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef200usm.htm

[Sean-Mcr]

Ok i missed that, i actually thought he was talking about the two canon 70-200 zooms:rolleyes:

You can of course expect the prime to be sharper and the extra stop is a good thing. Just really depends still on what and how you shoot

Have you thought about the sigma 70-200 2.8 if you want to go down the zoom route still?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Just compare them at equal apertures. BTW, the prime is sharper:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef200usm.htm

Huh, from that the prime appears a lot sharper, but oh well. I have the 70-200mm f/4L and use it for sports and it's great. I find it to be incredibly sharp with very fast AF and I don't know what'd I do without the zoom. Me, I wouldn't mind a prime past the 300mm range because then I'd be using it for all far away stuff anyway where I wouldn't need the zoom, but up close, I think the zoom is needed. I don't have infinite experience or anything, but I've shot a few outdoor lacrosse games and used the zoom alot!!!

But, if your going to do any kind of indoor sporting event without a question go with the prime. You'll need every bit of light you can soak up. I shot two indoor soccer events with my 70-200 f/4L and it was HORRIBLE. I had to bump up the ISO to 3200, drop down the EC to -2/3, and shoot wide open at f/4.0 just to get shutters ranging between 1/125th and 1/250th which still wasn't enough to stop the motion blur from kicking feet and flying balls.

Just a few thoughts.

[cdhender]

I'd say for sports you should keep the zoom.

I'm seriously considering this lense (the 200 prime) But I don't shoot sports. I shoot mostly candids and "still life" with longer lenses. I don't shoot wildlife but this will do for the occassional zoo visit.

[grego]

Did no one read the title of this thread?
He IS deciding between a 70-200L f/4 and a 200L f/2.8

And I'll throw my $.02 in. I've got the 70-200 f/4, and friend has the 200L 2.8. He wishes he had the zoom over the extra stop. I used the prime and I totally agree.
the 70-200L f/4 is an amazing lens, I would even put it up against a 70-200L f/2.8


70-200 f/2.8 Sigma. And there you go. A 70-200 zoom with 2.8 ability.

[Andy_T]

Did no one read the title of this thread?
He IS deciding between a 70-200L f/4 and a 200L f/2.8


Doh! Guilty as charged. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've just read so many 70-200/4.0 vs. 70-200/2.8 threads here that I assumed it'll be another one.

Best regards,
Andy