200 2.8 vs 70-200 f4 (non is)

Hello!

Anyone have any thoughts of how these two compare?
I have the 200 already, but I'm currently lacking the range between 80 and 200. This was partly filled with a 100-400 but that lens has now gone.

I realise that I'll be missing the 2.8, but I will be gaining focal length if I go for the 70-200.

I mainly do landscape shots, so the lack of IS and a fast aperture aren't a huge deal to me.

I'd be trading the 200 in.

Thanks

Well if you don't really need the 2.8, and you want the extra flexibility, do it. IQ on the 70-200 is great.

I would think one question to ask yourself is what situations and how much use do you get out of your 200L (especially below f/4)? I think you'd only be trading some (I'm not sure how much) sharpness and some lower light capability for versatility. Weight is about the same and I think the zoom is only a little bit longer, so no big deal there (unless you don't like white)

Personally I'd probably rather have the versatility of the zoom. If it were the IS version, I'd definitely go for the zoom.

Since you are not looking at the IS version, it comes down to f/2.8 (and sharper) or the versatility (but still sharp).

It's the versality of the zoom that I'm interested in. f2.8 is nice, but not that useful if you want 150mm!

One more question, how does the 70-200 work with the Canon 1.4tc?

Since you'll be stopping down anyhow, I'd go with the zoom. Do you shoot anything other than landscape?

nellyle wrote in post #14941339
f2.8 is nice, but not that useful if you want 150mm!

huh care to explain what you mean by not useful???

I never got use it with a 1.4X. When looking, I eventually opted for a used 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (MKI).

I would assume with the 1.4X you would hardly notice a difference (a slight hit on both IQ & AF speed). The hit is very slight on mine with a Kenko (I do not hesitate to use the combination). But that only puts me at f/4 not f/5.6. A 2X Kenko is another story though.

Though, hopefully someone will chime in that has used a 1.4X on the f/4.0 non-IS.

If versatility is what you want, go for it.

Remember the reverse of your statement. Versatility is of no use if you want f/2.8 at 200mm.

I too would still probably go versatility.

Ultimate versatility here could mean keeping the 200L and also picking up the zoom. Unless you won't use the 200L or you can't afford both. Then if the 200L doesn't get used often then sell it.

kin2son wrote in post #14941394
huh care to explain what you mean by not useful???

Sorry, I mean 2.8 is no use if I want a wider angle than the 200 gives.

nellyle wrote in post #14941339
One more question, how does the 70-200 work with the Canon 1.4tc?

In terms of IQ, not bad at all.

In terms of AF, I'm not sure. I'll explain why. The only time I use the 1.4x is when I'm doing bird photography. Since reach is usually the name of the game for this particular subject, I never do bird photography without the 1.4x. I have noticed that AF in AI servo with the 1.4x does not update as often as I would like, making tracking less than perfect on fast moving birds. I am not sure whether this is due to the 1.4x, the fact that my 1.4x is a kenko, the fact that I am using it on a rebel body, the fact that one or more bits of equipment is faulty, or a combination of all of the above.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is a better all around lens than the non-IS version. Better IQ, better bokeh and better weatherproofing. Yes, it's more expensive but, IMO, well worth the extra money.

It is my favorite portrait lens...

RPCrowe wrote in post #14943231
The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is a better all around lens than the non-IS version. Better IQ, better bokeh and better weatherproofing. Yes, it's more expensive but, IMO, well worth the extra money.

It is my favorite portrait lens...

The IS is a better lens, yes, not thanks to IQ, but thanks to IS, weather sealing, and rounded aperture blades. However, whether it is well worth the money or not is as you say, entirely a matter of personal opinion. In mine, it is not.
IQ is a wash between the 2, I have come to this conclusion as a result of owning both lenses, and I know of several others who have also had or tested both and found that the non-IS is equal or better than the IS in that aspect. Thus any differences in image quality between the two is likely down to copy variation, not the inherent superiority of one lens over the other.
Since the lens will be used mainly for landscapes, IS is pointless, lowering the value of the IS version even further to the OP.
IMO the non-IS would more than serve his purposes as well as saving him a nice wad of cash in the process.