200mm f/2.8 prime vs 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS)

Thanks for reading this thread. I am debating purchasing the 200mm f/2.8 prime or the 70-200 f/2.8 non is. I know this is short for sports, but just looking to start out for now.

I was thinking about getting a 200mm f/2.8, 1dmkii, and 1.4X teleconverter ( for day games). Now this is geared towards owners of the 200mm f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8.
How do these two compare as far as sharpness and focusing speed? I believe the only place I would use a 70-200 is event and wedding photography, which I don't do as of now.

For portraits and other stuff I'll be getting the 85mm f/1.8 and probably a 135L in the future. As I said I'm just starting out, and would like to do some sports work, if I buy a 200mm prime used and it doesn't work out I can sell it and lose no money. Oh btw right now I have a 500d, 50mm f/1.8, Tokina 12-24, and 430 EX.

Thanks for the help.

Andrew

Since you shooting other things besides sports I would get 70-200mm f2.8 non IS. Pair it with 85mm f1.8 and you set for sports and potraits.

if you consider the 200, 2L instead it is an easy decision. Best glass canon makes!!

slimenta wrote in post #10728346
if you consider the 200, 2L instead it is an easy decision. Best glass canon makes!!

Agree

the 200 2.8 is a great lens. its very light and fast focusing. Id say its great for travel, light birding and is good for sports etc, but id highlight its small size and weight with suburb image quality. I suspect the zoom is slower focusing and i know its much heavier, but if your shooting on a monopod on the sidelines, and not lugging it traveling or hiking etc, id probably choose it instead. If your shooting on the sidelines handheld for an hour with barely any breaks to put the thing down: Definitely take the prime

actually the non IS zoom is a couple hundred grams lighter than the IS, so maybe not as bad. Ive only used IS. Still more than a pound over the prime.

I've got a 70-200mm non IS and it's not that heavy and find no need for a monopod or the like. Also with the zoom you have the option to zoom out if the action gets closer.

Matt

madspartus wrote in post #10728609
the 200 2.8 is a great lens. its very light and fast focusing. Id say its great for travel, light birding and is good for sports etc, but id highlight its small size and weight with suburb image quality. I suspect the zoom is slower focusing and i know its much heavier, but if your shooting on a monopod on the sidelines, and not lugging it traveling or hiking etc, id probably choose it instead. If your shooting on the sidelines handheld for an hour with barely any breaks to put the thing down: Definitely take the prime

Not certain which lens you are referring to. I hand hold both the 200 2L and the 300 2.8 on a Mark IV for a 90 minute soccer match without difficulty.