What would you choose at 200mm: Aperture or Zoom

Sendide wrote:

Seriously, if you can afford 70-200 2.8. go for it. It sounds like one of the best 35mm SLRs lens ever made. I wish I could afford it. (and I like when the lens is big and heavy )

concerning 200mm 2.8 vs 70-200 f/4. from your experience with 75-300, how often do you take pictures in 75-135 range? And hwo often do you wish it were faster?

I absolutely agree with that. I'm checking the ebay 10 times a day, trying to get some quality lens for a good price. And I see that it alsmost does not make sense to buy the lens used. For example, a couple of days ago 200mm f2.8 used, several years old, but claimed to be in mint condition, was sold for $500, only $100 off the new copy price at B&H.

Good point.. maybe I should have said that

Yes.. 200mm is the absolute maximum focal length I ever need to work in my particular theatre..

200mm NOT for in your home.. but excellent for concert shots when you can't be in the first row!

I can certainly attest to the fact that 200mm @ f/2.8 is VERY usefull with or without IS.

IS is one of those things that one can certainly live without.. but is also certainly handy to have.

I've got the "cream of the crop Flagship Canon"... but I still miss my Sigma.. it was lighter and black..

Well, that's because the used lens is generally as good as a new lens. If my older lenses are any indication, these things will last for decades, so if its a couple of years old, it still has an enormous lifetime ahead of it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
....I've got the "cream of the crop Flagship Canon"... but I still miss my Sigma.. it was lighter and black..

Heh heh! You can't have it back.

Well, if the price were right, maybe you could. IS does sound interesting....

Sendide wrote:
Hi dear fellas,
paycheck time and , of course, "L" time
I've been in a canon store truying on my 10D with the coming lenses :
70-200 F/4 (nice and light ), F4 though
70-200 F/2.8 : fast but HEAVY , which makes the 2.8 almost useless without IS (IS is out of reach so I didn't even bother to try it).
Canon prime : 200mm f/2.8, light, slightly sharper, no zoming of course.

my question please : if you were "me" : take a look at the lenses I have below, would you go for the 70-200 f/4 or the prime 200mm L II f/2.8 (which are almost same cost) ?

enlighten me please
thanks in advance

I would say that the 70-200 f2.8 L is far from useless without IS. It is useless without some kind of support, but so is the IS lens. Never mind the stability issue - it's the weight! Just try holding the thing to your eye for more than a few seconds! With any of these lenses - including the 70-200 f4 - I cannot over recommend a monopod. Then you get the cheap man's IS and you can spend a lot more time concentrating on your subject, not how much pain you're in.

I like speed in a lens and often make my decisions based on that. That one stop extra shutterspeed may make the difference to getting the shot or not, and to me, that's worth buying. A zoom also gives me incredible flexibility so I'd vote for the 70-200 f2.8 non IS, and I did since I own one. You'll be able to use (well, maintain AF) with the 1.4 extender and the 2.8 lens, and you won't with the f4.

With the 200mm f2.8 you'll be able to use the extender, but you also get locked into an effective focal length of 320 mm, and that's very long. I mean it has it's place but it wouldn't be something that you would be constantly reaching for.

thanks dave,
fair enough
regards
Khalid

thanks dave,
fair enough
regards
Khalid