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

You can also adapt this one, which is much easier to find
https://www.cameraques​t.com/nf3002.htm

The question makes no sense to me. Doesn't it depend on the focal length needs of the shot at hand? I'll take one copy of each, please.

Bassat wrote in post #18341552
The question makes no sense to me.

Yeah, it doesn't really make any sense to me, either, because the lenses are rather highly specialized, and are used by different people for photographing different things.

.

Bassat wrote in post #18341552
The question makes no sense to me. Doesn't it depend on the focal length needs of the shot at hand? I'll take one copy of each, please.

A friend ask me to post this, He seems to think most people would choose the 200 prime over the 400 prime simply because it shoots f1.8. The question is simple, Which lens would you choose if you could. This post is not about price, size, weight, etc. It's about what range would you prefer if these two lenses were in front of you.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18341573
Yeah, it doesn't really make any sense to me, either, because the lenses are rather highly specialized, and are used by different people for photographing different things.

.

The question is simple. yes they are two totally different lenses but put all that nonsense aside. If you have these two lenses in front of you. which one would YOU choose. Cast your vote above.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/SRsv​xK

Ok, I concede the point that rationale has absolutely nothing to do with this choice. If someone offered to just give me either of the two, my choice, with no specific project in mind, I'd take the 400 2.8L.

Why?:
I spend more time at 400mm than at 200mm.
The 400 is still serviced by Canon.
The 400 is worth more, should I decide to go back to my perfectly serviceable 100-400L.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #18341576
A friend ask me to post this, He seems to think most people would choose the 200 prime over the 400 prime simply because it shoots f1.8.

Well, you should have told us in the original post.

Tell your friend that people pick a lens first based on FL, and then comes aperture.

The extra 1.3 f-stop advantage is not significant for shutter speed with modern cameras, and not going to provide any major advantage in background blur.
http://asklens.com ….8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

All considered, a 200/1.8 is a much more flexible lens. Also because it can be a nice 400 with an extender.

It's not how long it is, but how you use it

I split the difference

very happy 300 F/2.8 owner

Bokeh on a 300 is awesome

I have 400/2.8 L IS which Canon just stopped supporting/servicing, so if your friend just want to have big white lens, why not to get 300/1.8?
http://www.canonrumors​.com …ns-we-didnt-know-existed/

And you can mount it only on the EOS 3D
It is VERY much rarer than the 1200mm,. even I have seen that one in person twice!

I would pick the 400mm, so i can sell it to fund 200mm f/2L without adding extra cash.

FEChariot wrote in post #18341372
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/

If you steady it on a tank or turret you might be able to hit a subject as close as 7 meters or so.