I WANT a telephoto for my bag just to have one..Don't know how often I'd use it...Seems both these lenses are rated very high by both photodo and photographyreview and the prices are about the same..

With the zoom there are obvious benefits...more focal lengths from which to choose..Is there any real benefit to the fixed over the zoom or visa versa??

-- Charles Lipton (Chuxter31@adelphia.net), December 30, 2001

Answers

The prime lens has higher optical quality, but that's not to say that the 70-200 F4L is lacking in this respect....

The 200 F2.8L is smaller than the zoom (other than the bigger front glass), and also is a stop faster. I own the zoom, and I think it's a wonderful lens. If you need the extra stop or the smaller size, then the prime is the one, but otherwise, the zoom takes it for many people.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), December 30, 2001.

well, the very obvious advantage of the prime is that it's a full stop brighter! i'm not sure how important that is to you, but that's a quite important point.

weight-wise they are both about equal, with the prime lens actually some 60g heavier (it has /extremely/ sturdy, metal construction -- no question, i trust it more than the zoom's). the prime has 72mm filters, the zoom has 67mm. the zoom focuses a bit closer (1.2m vs. 1.5m). the zoom has nearly twice the amount of glass elements and is definitely more prone to flair. the zoom is longer (172mm vs. 136mm), but the prime is a bit thicker; the zoom scares people more than the prime lens does, no question (especially the white color of the zoom, and its length).

despite photodo giving both lenses idential 4.1 scores, i have no problem giving the prime the edge, in terms of color definition, resolution, and center-to-edge sharpness (which the zoom significantly lacks at the edge, according to the graphs at photodo). i own the prime lens, and i've worked a lot with the 70-200 2.8 (not 4.0) -- i'll own the prime any day over the zoom, for my type of work (frankly, i hated the 2.8 zoom for it's obscene weight and conspicuous design).

it's up to you. what's more important? the extra speed, slightly better image quality, less conspicuous design, less issues with flare, or the flexibility of the zoom, & slightlier closer focusing ability (0.3m closer)?

-- m. lohninger (anadirn@mediaone.net), December 30, 2001.

The above posters covered the main points well, so I'll add a few user comments. I own them both and find them both excellent in slightly different ways. The zoom has excellent flare control for a zoom, but if you shoot sunsets don't bring the zoom, the prime has much less flare. The prime works extremely well with the Canon 1.4 x Extender, whereas the zoom is a bit soft and even more flare prone.

If I could only have one, I'd take the prime, but you can't go wrong with either one.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), December 30, 2001.