I love this site.. I own the canon 7e and the following ef lenses: 28mm 2.8,50mm MK I 1.8, 100mm 2, and the 28-105...I want a telephoto lens and am torn between the 200mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 4L.... I've gotten some great feedback on both lenses. I can not for the life of me make up my mind....HELP!! Someone...If you could own one or the other...which would it be??

-- C. Lipton (chuxter31@adelphia.net), January 21, 2002

Answers

Well, what do you want to use it for?

Personally I'd go for the 70-200 f4 for what I do, which involves a lot of walking around and taking quick photos of interesting stuff. But if I used tripods a lot I'd go for the prime.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), January 21, 2002.

i'll repeat what I said here:

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), January 21, 2002.

you seem to be into using primes, so why not another? the 200mm 2.8 is a great lens from what i've heard (compact too). plus, you can use TCs with better results than you can get from a zoom. i'm not saying the 70-200 is bad by any means, i'm just stating my opinion. happy hunting!

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

Personally, I have the EF 200mm f/2.8L and an Elan 7E, but found myself using the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM more often for hobbling around and taking photos of interesting things like wildlife. The 200mm was just too short.

Your situation is likely to be different. Have you considered borrowing or rent a lens before making a final decision.

Alternatively, you could buy a used EF 200mm f/2.8L (being more common on the used market), and sell it if it does not suit your shooting style. L lenses tend to keep their resale value very well, or in the case of eBay even appreciate in value :-)

-- Julian Loke (elan7e-owner@yahoogroups.com), January 22, 2002.

You have already asked this question here, and you're just going to get the same answer. If you really can't decide, go to a decent camera shop which will let you handle both. If you still can't decide, go to a pro centre and rent both (at the same time, so you can side-by-side compare). If you STILL can't decide, buy both.

If I could own one or the other....

I would and do own the 70-200 F4L. It is more useful to me than the 200 F2.8, as it is rare that I feel the need for more than F4, and the weight and flexibility of the F4 lens is very appealing to me. I have a 300 F4L IS also, and the zoom fills in the gap between the longer lens and my standard zoom.

Which do you use more? Your present primes or your zoom? If the primes, then it would seem sensible to add the 200 F2.8L. If the zoom, then the 70-200 F4L would match better. Or if you use both, then get both lenses. The 200 to add to your primes, and the 70-200 to make a light(ish) zoom collection for travel.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

Like you, I have the 7E, 28, 50, & 100. I also have the 200 f/2.8L - it tops the package off nicely for me. I like using primes because they are very sharp and are less prone to flare than zooms. I know the 70-200 f4 is a fine lens, and I considered it when buying the 200, but I don't regret getting the prime. I frequently use a tripod or monopod and take my time when shooting, which usually consists of scenics or portraits. The 100 f2 and 200 f2.8 are both fantastic portrait lenses (I'd love to add the 135 f2L). When shooting events and need to move a little quicker, I use the 7E as a second body to an EOS 3 - this allows more efficient use of the primes. If event coverage accounts for most of your shooting, I'd recommend the zoom - especially if you only have the one body. But if like primes as suggested by your current system, you'll love the 200L.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), January 22, 2002.

I used to own all primes 20-24-35-60mm micro-85-105 and a 80-200mm way back in my Nikon days. Most of my pictuers were taken with the 60mm {replaced later with a 28-70 2.8} and the 80-200. When I switched to Canon I went with a 20, 28-70, 70-200 2.8, and a 1.4X teleconverter. Honestly I have never missed the primes. Some people might say I have two big and bulky lenses but it no question beats carring 6-8 prime lenses. I do not have to worry about fumbling to find the right lens or missing a moment cause I didn't have the right lens. Image quality is superb if someone finds these lenses lacking then maybe they should think about a larger format or more about their photos instead of all the #s. Your needs should be the first concern. For example I almost always shoot at 50mm {what I see} and if I can't get closer then I use a zoom to lets say get closer to what I want. Now for me this means a lot of fine tuning the focal length cause I'm not moveing my feet like I normally would. Now if you feel comfortable with a jump from 100 to 200 go for the prime. If you need a varity it would be more cost effective and more convenient to go with the zoom. Some one else had a great idea about renting the experince would help out a lot.

Also maybe check out the 70-200 2.8 in might be larger than both lenses but it is nice to have a 2.8 or if you add a 1.4X teleconverter a 98-280mm f4.

Hope this helps

-- john (mr.-n-mrs.g@att.net), January 22, 2002.

Here's my theory. Telephoto zooms are usually bought for the long end and wide angle zooms are bought for the wide end. Those 28 to whatevers are usually bought by people who don't want to change lenses. (I have a few of each. I don't know the theory on that except I'm an optiholic.)

So, if what you really want is a 200mm lens, the 200 f/2.8 is a better choice than the 70-200 f/4 because you get a full stop faster lens. But you give up the flexibility of a zoom for framing, etc.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 22, 2002.