Ef 70-200 f/4 or Ef 200 f/2.8

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Using an Elan 7 with a 75-300 USM, i'm not very please with the result and i want better optics. As with my budjet, should i go for the 70-200 f/4 zoom or go with the 200mm f/2.8 prime. I could also go with the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-300 f/4, but i don't trust those 3rd party lenses.

I also like to know if the 200mm f/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x is good?

Thanks.

-- Pascal Harvey (harveypascal@hotmail.com), November 25, 2001

Answers

Depends what you want really...

The 70-200 F4L is an absolutely brilliant lens, and many others here will agree. The optics are brilliant, build is good...

But then the same goes for the 200 F2.8L. It depends whether the range of the zoom, or the speed of the prime are important to you. I can certainly attest that my 70-200 F4L works very nicely with my 1.4X TC (Canon, of course). I don't have the 2X, but that would give an F8 lens which would not AF with my EOS 5. the 200 F2.8L + 2X will of course give 400mm F5.6, but I don't know how good that combo would be. For that range I use a 300 F4L IS + 1.4X.

My feeling would be that TCs and shorter lenses (ie 200mm) are not a great way of getting longer lenses, so I'd go for the convenience of the zoom, and then use something else for longer work. However, the 200mm + 1.4X combo does work, and will provide a good solution until you can afford something longer (if you feel you need it).

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), November 25, 2001.


I've got both lenses and they're fine optics, but aimed at different purposes. The prime is also lighter and smaller and makes a great combo with the 1.4x extender.

As good as the EF 70-200 4L USM is, the EF 200 2.8L USM is slightly sharper--especially in the corners at 200 mm--and has less flare problems. The issue of flare with the EF 70-200 4L USM only arises if you shoot sunsets. The sixteen elements of the zoom generate big orange floaters while the prime lens is nearly flare free.

The EF 200 2.8L USM and 1.4 extender is a sharp 280 mm optic, head and shoulders above any 100-300 zoom. In fact, it is very close to my old EF 300 4L USM in terms of sharpness, albeit with a little more flare when shot into the sun. I haven't tried the 2x extender.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), November 25, 2001.


I have the 200/2.8L and EF2X combination and am very pleased with the results. A 400mm lens is tricky to use, and I find I often shoot at an effective aperture of f8, so that DOF covers any problems with focus. But even at f5.6, the part of the frame that's in focus is sharp (judged with an 8X loupe and Velvia and K25 slides).

Even though the prime works very well, I think I'd favour the f4 zoom. I have the 70-200/2.8L, and use it much more than the prime/converter combination, and I don't usually need the f2.8. I had considered selling the 200/2.8L after I purchased the zoom (my 200/2.8L was bought second hand from someone who'd done the same thing), but the 200 and converter is significantly better than the zoom/converter, so I'm hanging onto it for now.

Keep in mind that the converter I use is the Canon (original version), not a third party. I have a Tamron 1.4 converter, which was cheap, but only so-so in performance. It added significantly to flare when shooting into bright lights with the 200/2.8L.

-- Geoff Doane (geoff_doane@cbc.ca), November 27, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ