70-200 f/4 vs. 200 f/2.8 prime

I'm thinking about picking up another lens in the 200 range to use on my spare body for sports and use it primarily as a remote. It will most likely be on a 1.6x crop body and maybe use a 1.4x tc at times. I'm thinking of the 70-200 f/4 non-IS or the 200 f/2.8 prime lens to pull this duty off. Hockey, baseball and football are what I'm targeting.

I used to have a 70-200 f/4 lens and loved how sharp, small and light weight it was, but wondered if the sharpness of the prime lens would be worth it over the 70-200. I also might use the f/4 version more since it's more travel convenient than the f/2.8 version.

Prime. Easily. Especially since you clearly need the reach. The prime takes a T-Con very admirably. 1 stop is a lot when it comes to long lenses too. For the price, it's a bargain.

The 70-200 is sharp, but the prime will blow it out of the water. I love my 200L, it's as sharp as the 135L wide open (another lens you should consider rather than the zoom), and its bokeh is absolutely gorgeous. Perhaps one of the most underappreciated lenses for the money in Canon's lineup.

I have just voted for the prime, even though I don't own a single prime lens I know I should!

I have the prime.. and am lovin it.
I'm still learning and am having to get use to everything, but
so far I just LOVE the bokeh with this lens.
BUT I do find myself longing for a shorter reach when on the sidelines at times.

can you add a third vote - for both. lol JK

I doubt the 200/2.8 is noticeably sharper (might actually not be) than the 70-200 f4 where it counts... on prints. For the web.... no one will notice any difference.

Save some cash and get the 70-200.

Save some cash? They're almost the same price...the prime is just a little bit more.

I voted for the prime but I have to say if you are using a TC then you might like the 70-200mm a little better due to the fact that you wont have to move around to try to frame your target better.

Otherwise the prime is a better combo if you dont mind the walking/running around
The IQ is awesome too on the prime, the 70-200 is very very nice as well and I have gotten quite a few VERY sharp pictures with the f4 non IS before.

The 135L is on my list.

-Eric-

I'm looking at the ISO 12233 tests and the sharpness looks comparable on both lens wide open on a 40D. The 200 looks sharper on a 1.3x body though.

I was leaning towards the prime but I'm still having mixed feelings on what to get.

Link to ISO tests

honestly even for the sharpness dont go with the 70-200 f4 non IS.. that lens is not worth it to me... go with the prime.. why not take a look at the sigma 70-200 2.8?

perryge wrote in post #6968966
Save some cash? They're almost the same price...the prime is just a little bit more.

True... about $60... well it is "some" cash

^^ I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, need a second lens of that range for a 2nd body used as a remote.

JBaz wrote in post #6970702
^^ I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, need a second lens of that range for a 2nd body used as a remote.

If you already have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I would pick up the prime. Best of both worlds...

For sports, esp. hockey, you are gonna need the speed. F2.8 all the way.

holy crap, this is old. Well, I'm probably planning on gettin a 300 f/4 prime for a remote body since I upgraded to the 5DmkII and probably sell off my 1.6x crop body.