canon 200mm f2.8 vs canon 70-200 f4

Ok so i am battling back and forth on this one. I have a Tokina 11-16, 50mm 1.8, a canon 100mm 2.8 and want to get another lens.

I love primes, but also like the versatility of the 70-200 f4 non IS.

If i buy 200mm f2.8- With a 1.4 extender, i would have the range covered with adding the 200 2.8, along w/ my 100 and 50. Plus i then have 3 lightweight, inconspicuous lenses that are fast and tack sharp. Most of my shooting is daytime, but i am getting more into portrait as my girls get older and also like to shoot evening rodeos, sports, etc. With this option I would have 2.8 or wider from 11-200 pretty much nailed. My sister in law teaches dance and wants me to start shooting her quarterly dance shows in doors as well.

If i buy the 70-200 f4, i have a nice focal range covered and avoid a lot of lens switches on the go. Would i miss the speed of f2.8 on this one? Should i sell the 100mm macro and get a 70-200 f2.8?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

John

I would think twice on selling the 100 macro , chances are you'll regret it at some point .

I've got the 2.8 and a 2x but have not used it too much yet ( crazy work sked right now till mid Aug ) but I feel it will be a great set for reach in well lit outdoor settings .

I'm going to get the 70-200 f/4 non IS just because for me it's a budget priced lens that can do a lot and will fit what I want it for . While the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is an awesome lens I want a cheaper priced back up I can grab for walk about shoots in the woods / brush and not have to worry as much on damaging a $2600 lens VS a $750 one (less if I find a good used ) . I use natural light for wildlife so I don't think the f/4 will limit me too much .

I'm assuming you'll be shooting some wildlife as you never stated in your post .

nitehawk55 wrote in post #10579440
I would think twice on selling the 100 macro , chances are you'll regret it at some point .

I've got the 2.8 and a 2x but have not used it too much yet ( crazy work sked right now till mid Aug ) but I feel it will be a great set for reach in well lit outdoor settings .

I'm going to get the 70-200 f/4 non IS just because for me it's a budget priced lens that can do a lot and will fit what I want it for . While the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is an awesome lens I want a cheaper priced back up I can grab for walk about shoots in the woods / brush and not have to worry as much on damaging a $2600 lens VS a $750 one (less if I find a good used ) . I use natural light for wildlife so I don't think the f/4 will limit me too much .

I'm assuming you'll be shooting some wildlife as you never stated in your post .

Yes, definitely do a ton of hiking with my 3 year old on my back..love to shoot wildlife/nature and anything found on the trail

'night sports, portraits, indoor dance' .. Chances are 2.8 isn't even fast enough, depending on the venue. The last dance recital I shot was ISO3200, 2.0, 1/400.

With a 2.8 lens and an XSI(limited to ISO1600), that would put your SS at 1/100.. which is too slow for dance/sports.

For indoor/night sports and portraits, the 3 best lenses are: 85 1.8, 100 2.0, 135 2.0

johnandbentley wrote in post #10579482
Yes, definitely do a ton of hiking with my 3 year old on my back..love to shoot wildlife/nature and anything found on the trail

That's the other good thing with the 70-200 f/4 , it weighs a lot less than the 2.8 especially if you have a 3 yr old in tow

And if you are into nature for certain give letting go the 100mm macro serious thought . With a non IS all you really need is a bean bag and/ or monopod .

To the OP... I have both lenses and use them differently. For very general purposes (a parade, the zoo) I'll grab the zoom, but for sports, low light situations or portraits, I grab the black beauty. I've tested both with the 1.4 extender and the prime comes out on top at same apertures. I really love both lenses, but if I could only keep one, it would be the prime.

nightcat wrote in post #10579828
To the OP... I have both lenses and use them differently. For very general purposes (a parade, the zoo) I'll grab the zoom, but for sports, low light situations or portraits, I grab the black beauty. I've tested both with the 1.4 extender and the prime comes out on top at same apertures. I really love both lenses, but if I could only keep one, it would be the prime.

Thanks! I have a feeling i will end up with both... the 200 to give me that speed and the 70-200 f4 to use for hiking, outdoors. Just need to decide which one to get first.

I own the 70-200mm f/4L IS and just got the 200mm f/2.8L to use when I want something brighter or less conspicuous. I did this instead of trading up to the 70-200mm f/2.8 which weighs as much as the other two combined. I'm still trying this out but in general I tend to pick one or the other and go out and shoot. Also, since I keep the 24-105 f/4L on my camera most of the time I can now take it and just the 200mm f/2.8 and have a about the same weight but less size. As you can see I have the range covered in zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) and primes (50, 100, 200, 300) so I'm a little crazy right now and have to whittle down my bag.

Want to get the 70-200 f/4L down the road but got the 200 f/2.8L about 8 months ago and love it -- it is an amazing lens. I found I shot a lot at 200mm with a borrowed tele zoom from a friend, so decided to go prime first and have not regretted it.

dnauer wrote in post #10580956
Want to get the 70-200 f/4L down the road but got the 200 f/2.8L about 8 months ago and love it -- it is an amazing lens. I found I shot a lot at 200mm with a borrowed tele zoom from a friend, so decided to go prime first and have not regretted it.

Thanks!

Went with the 70-200 f4 non is to start as i found a great deal on a mint used copy. Thanks for the help!

johnandbentley wrote in post #10583639
Went with the 70-200 f4 non is to start as i found a great deal on a mint used copy. Thanks for the help!

Great lens and I think you made the right call. I own both and the 70-200 f/4 is a more versatile lens, if I could only have one that's the one I would have.

In time you might want the add the 200 f/2.8. Its a great lens, and very inconspicuous.

For your indoor shots, consider the 100 f/2.