Yet another 'what lens' question...but different

OK, you can see from my sig what I have. I recently went through the torture of choosing between the 24-70 and the 24-105 and after looking at the exif data from a couple months' worth of pictures, decided I could use the extra 35mm and IS more than the 2.8 faster lens.
That said, now I want to get something on the longer end. I can't afford - after the recent purchase - a 70-200/2.8, so it's either a 70-200/4 or a 200/2.8. I know one's a zoom and all that, but again, I look at my shots and I haven't pulled out my Sigma except for an airshow since last year. However, highschool football is back in full swing and I'd like to be able to capture some good shots.
I'm leaning toward the prime. I just need to be pushed over the edge. The cost difference is nothing, the faster aperture desired, the sharpness unmatched. But...it's fixed length is a concern, especially at that length.
On my xt, could it be used for portraits? Have any of you used both and found one or the other more useful? Am I just nuts?
Why couldn't I have simply been born rich??

NorCalAl wrote in post #2106649
OK, you can see from my sig what I have. I recently went through the torture of choosing between the 24-70 and the 24-105 and after looking at the exif data from a couple months' worth of pictures, decided I could use the extra 35mm and IS more than the 2.8 faster lens.
That said, now I want to get something on the longer end. I can't afford - after the recent purchase - a 70-200/2.8, so it's either a 70-200/4 or a 200/2.8. I know one's a zoom and all that, but again, I look at my shots and I haven't pulled out my Sigma except for an airshow since last year. However, highschool football is back in full swing and I'd like to be able to capture some good shots.
I'm leaning toward the prime. I just need to be pushed over the edge. The cost difference is nothing, the faster aperture desired, the sharpness unmatched. But...it's fixed length is a concern, especially at that length.
On my xt, could it be used for portraits? Have any of you used both and found one or the other more useful? Am I just nuts?
Why couldn't I have simply been born rich??

i've never used the prime and from what i hear it is an excellent lens (i almost rented it last night).

that said the 70-200L f4 is excellent throughout its range even wide open.

i use my zoom throughout its range but i could probably adapt to the prime.

still, i believe in minimal gear so versatility wins out here. i really love the 70-200L f4 and it is the sharpest lens that i have ever used.

ed rader

I should have said that IQ is perhaps the most important thing to me. That's another of the reasons I'm considering the 200 prime. That and the night football...tho I could use high iso and 4.0....

NorCalAl wrote in post #2106706
I should have said that IQ is perhaps the most important thing to me. That's another of the reasons I'm considering the 200 prime. That and the night football...tho I could use high iso and 4.0....

the prime may have a very slight edge in IQ. might.

you don't hear of many people selling the F4 because they were disappointed in its IQ. usually they sell the f4 because they want a faster lens.

if i shot a specific type of event on a regular basis and i could see myself doing that for the forseeable future i would consider a lens for just that purpose....e.g., 200 f2.8 or for night football.

but that would still leave you without the versatility of a zoom the rest of the time.

i don't know how involved in photography you are and what and how often you shoot.

this weekend i shot a street protest on saturday and a half marathon on sunday.

both were outdoor events in the Norcal sunshine and the 70-200L f4 worked very well for both.

the 70-200 zoom is an essential piece of kit that i could not do without.

ed rader

While I've been interested and involved since I was a teenager in photography, it's only recently that I can do more (time-wise) than simply collect gear. Back in my early twenties, I shot mostly...everything. Just lately, with more time on my hands, I've been more interested in people and landscapes. Shot a yo-yo tourney this past weekend - also in the NorCal sunshine. The f4 on the 24-105 was more than adequate. But, I do want to shoot the football games and I have used the bigger aperture on the Tammy quite a few times.
I'm just torn. You're actually probably right - the zoom would be much more useful come the end of the season. It's actually cheaper, too. I know if I simply push the buy now button, either way I'll probably be happy. And either one sells second-hand very well.

Why not the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and split the difference?

I've got and shoot with both, but the 200 f 2.8 prime is my favorite. Its quite a bit smaller and being nonwhite is less noticeable. Makes a great street lens for that reason. It takes a 1.4X quite well and gives a reasonably sharp 280 f4 with that on. Excellent lens.

Roger Cicala wrote in post #2107774
I've got and shoot with both, but the 200 f 2.8 prime is my favorite. Its quite a bit smaller and being nonwhite is less noticeable. Makes a great street lens for that reason. It takes a 1.4X quite well and gives a reasonably sharp 280 f4 with that on. Excellent lens.

the 200 f2.8 actually weighs more than the zoom -- 1.68 lbs. vs 1.56 lbs but the zoom is 1.4" longer.

maybe the color makes the prime seem quite a bit smaller ?

the 70-200f4 L does very well with a 1.4 TC too.

ed rader

I absolutely LOVE my 70-200mm f4 L. It's reasonably fast, and it is razor sharp. My 100% crops look like resized images. This lens actually turned me into a bit of a pixel peeper, mostly just because I like to make sure that I got my shot dead on, and so that I am able to print them any size I like.

I know I've posted this several times, but I think it's a great example shot...

@f4 full shot:

That is a great example shot

i think you should get the 70-200 4.0, and when you save up enough trade up for the 70-200 2.8.

I know your funds may be low, like mine, and it is an expensive choice, but how bad you want it is a different story.
Sell your kids or something im just kidding, but you get the idea

I acutally bought mine used from someone on the forums. I got a good price, and as you can tell, it's definately a 'good copy', if there is even such a thing as a 'bad' one. I don't think that I will be able to let go of this one. Even if I decide later that I need the 2.8 IS, I think I won't be able to sell the f4... It's just TOO good!

braduardo wrote in post #2108379
Even if I decide later that I need the 2.8 IS, I think I won't be able to sell the f4... It's just TOO good!

More power to ya.. I would keep them both too if i could. But if i had to sell to get the 2.8 IS, i might do that too..

Yeah, I've been all over because of this issue. Like I said, the last buy kept me up at night so this time I decided not to go that route. I simply pushed the place order button and bought....the 70-200/2.8! I almost bought the IS, but explaining why there's a nearly two thousand dollar charge...well. Nah. Not after the 24-105 just a couple weeks ago.
Now of course is the hard part - waiting for it to get here.
Hey, you only live once. I hope.

Hey, I missed the idea about selling the kids. Dang. I coulda got the IS...

Good choice. From all the pics I've seen of the 70-200 non-is, you won't be disappointed.

That said, I have both the Sigma 70-200 and the 200/2.8. I used the prime for sports and plan to use the Sigma for everything else.

IQ from the prime is great, really sharp and saturated.

But the versatile of the zoom wins out in some situation.

I'm planning to get the IS in the future, either the 70-200 IS or the 300 f4 IS, but couldn't decide if I'll let the 200/2.8 go.