Canon 200mm f1.8 Vs 400mm f2.8

Creating this for a friend who seems to think most people would choose the 200mm f1.8 Prime over the 400mm f2.8L IS USM. Money aside, Which one would you choose? cast your vote.

As usual, the answer is: depends on what you shoot most.

The 200/1.8 is a focus-by-wire lens, and not serviced by Canon anymore.
The 400/2.8 IS v1 is horribly heavy and requires a monopod.

What about a used 200/2 ?

CheshireCat wrote in post #18340390
As usual, the answer is: depends on what you shoot most.

Both lenses are focus-by-wire, and at least the 200/1.8 is not serviced by Canon anymore.
The 400/2.8 IS v1 is horribly heavy and requires a monopod.

What about a used 200/2 ?

Way to not get it. Put all that aside, Which one would be more beneficial to you.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #18340392
Way to not get it. Put all that aside, Which one would be more beneficial to you.

If I hadn't any lens covering 200mm, and I was forced to choose between the two, then I'd get the 200/1.8 for sure.

Being a sportsshooter, the 400 2.8 is my moneymaker.

The 400 f2.8 is a no-brainer for me. It is extremely useful for what I shoot, whereas the 200m f1.8 would not be very useful to me at all.

.

I have owned the 200mm 1.8 twice, and still own the 200mm f/2,.

never had or wanted the 400mm

I am quite sure that the version of 400mm f/2.8 mentioned in the poll, ie the IS, is not focus by wire. It is mechanical AF just like all of it's generation.

I would go for the 200mm f/1.8 any day of the week just check out the thread
https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1434​34&page=87
there are so many uses for this wonderful lens,...It is this thread which helped me decide to buy the 200f/2. I could not find an earlier f/1.8 version to buy as all the people I know who own one will never let them go.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18340640
I am quite sure that the version of 400mm f/2.8 mentioned in the poll, ie the IS, is not focus by wire. It is mechanical AF just like all of it's generation.

You are right: the "IS" version is not a focus-by-wire lens.
I have edited my post.

Split the difference, 300 2.8 IS II

DJ, I know you said, "Put all that aside," but I wonder if there won't be a certain amount of bias against the 200 because Canon no longer services it. I understand your friend specifically referenced the 1.8, but comparing the current IS version might remove at least a portion of any potential bias.

This really is all about the focal lengths, despite trying to convince myself that I need a nice lens over 200mm, I really don't, and if I did, the 100-400 would be more than sufficient.

Apples and oranges, 400 can't do f1.8, the f1.8 lens isn't a 400. That said I'd go 400 f2.8 just for the giggles

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18340833
Apples and oranges, 400 can't do f1.8, the f1.8 lens isn't a 400. That said I'd go 400 f2.8 just for the giggles

The 200 is a good 400 with a 2x TC.
The 400 will never be a 200 (and especially as compact).

Clearly the 300/1.8 would be the best if one has to decide between these two:

http://www.canonrumors​.com …ns-we-didnt-know-existed/