400, 200 or...?

[luoto]

Yep, that is how I tried to get my shortlist, I don't /really/ want to get into low light territory with apertures less than f4 unless (a) the situation warrants it and (b) that's the only realistic option. So I had thought I got to 50:50 with the 200 f2 and the 400 f2.8. I probably think it is more like 25:75 in favour of the 400 on the basis that the 200 f2 is nice but closer to what I already will have.

I think it is going to depend on how much I can realistically get the 400 for after discussions and if there's any pennies left (and wifely indulgence) for the 200 f2 (maybe that is the "nice, but indulgence" lens where as the 400 might be the boring practical (!).

From all that I have read about the two lenses as well they are both very highly regarded. That is good, not that it helps my situation though.

I think I need to sleep on this, maybe aided by a bottle of red !

 

[tiger82]

The 200mm end of the 70-200 f/2.8 is nowhere near the 200 f/2. The ratio or the area of the aperture opening is twice as large in the 200 f/2. The actual aperture area is even larger when you compare the two because the front glass of the 200 f/2 is much larger. I have both but I found that the 200 f/2 allowed me to shoot when I would normally have to put my camera away.

 

[bdunbar79]

The 200mm end of the 70-200 f/2.8 is nowhere near the 200 f/2. The ratio or the area of the aperture opening is twice as large in the 200 f/2. The actual aperture area is even larger when you compare the two because the front glass of the 200 f/2 is much larger. I have both but I found that the 200 f/2 allowed me to shoot when I would normally have to put my camera away.

I don't think that's the issue. The issue is focal length and what he already has. No one will argue that the 200 f/2L lens isn't one of Canon's best lenses ever. However, it is quite absurd to shell out $6k for a lens at a focal length that he already has. Much, much better decision to go 300 or 400.

 

[tiger82]

Is it unreasonable to use a TC to get 280 f/2.8 and 400 f/4? The few times I needed that length, I was happy with the results. If he's going to shoot indoor or portraits, the 300 f/2.8 and the 400 f/2.8 will not work as well. The OP should try to meet his needs not his wants. I wanted a 300 f/2.8 too but didn't fit my needs as much as the 200 f/2 did.

 

[tiger82]

Would you tell someone with an 18-200 not to get a 70-200 f/2.8 because he already has those lengths covered?

 

[bdunbar79]

Would you tell someone with an 18-200 not to get a 70-200 f/2.8 because he already has those lengths covered?

Lord almighty. It's easy to spend someone else's $6k isn't it? We're talking completely different prices/lenses. Yes, if he already has a $2500 70-200L lens, he's got it covered, so I'd say buy a $4500 300 f/2.8L I IS lens, much more worth it and less money. Even a used 400 f/2.8L I IS is about the same price as a new 200 f/2L. Again, you're assuming the 70-200 is bad at 200, which it isn't. Why pay $6k for something marginal, which in his case, what he's using it for, will be nothing more than marginal. Really bad investment if you ask me.

 

[tiger82]

I didn't say it was bad. If the 200 f/2 is a better lens for his purpose, why not? I got all 3 from CPS Eval and made up my mind after trying all 3 in my typical shoots. For that large an investment, I'd suggest renting or borrowing each to ensure his comfort level in the decision. Renting is a small investment to ensure you make the right decision for yourself. None of us are looking through his viewfinder and no one wants to make a $5000-7500 investment and not get the appropriate glass for his shooting profile. All of us can say how happy we are with our glass but none of us can say he will be happy. Heck, we test drive $1500 cars and rent $20000 cars before we buy, why not $5000 lenses?

 

[Michael_pfh]

I like this thread

 

[bdunbar79]

Well, I guess I can't talk too much. Afterall, I have all 3 of the primes plus the 70-200L. Bad investment? Eh, probably. We'll see if I can actually use all of them for what I was thinking when I bought them. Of course, if not, it won't be hard to sell them; getting that money back wouldn't make me cry necessarily

 

[tiger82]

That is the best brute force solution. And stress-free.

 

[IIIHobbs]

Can I just check why a recommendation for the 300 rather than the 400? (Presumably USM I IS" as a quick perusal on eBay (to get an idea of price) is showing them between 2.5-4.5k (I have not dug too deep into condition yet, as the mention of a 300 (rather than 400) was a bit of a curveball?

Kind regards, Luoto

Size, Weight, Performance value.

The 300 and 400 are both excelent lenses. But the 400 is enormous when compared with the 300. At twice the price,and ttwice the weight it is a totally different user experience than shooting with the 300 with an extender.

 

[luoto]

I thought I would give an update to this saga.

I ended up going for the 200mm f/2.00 lens and I got it for a lower price than I had expected. Leaving some pennies in the bank. Now I just have to wait for Fedex to do their stuff (and the guy to leave it at the depot as promised today) Sadly there seems to be a dearth of demo and hire functions in Finland compared to the UK and USA (lucky devils!).

Motivation was, after reviewing a lot of my past year's photographs, a lot of portraits and some internal shooting where the light was not so great (but the distance further than the 85mm f:1.8 I have. Plus in the winter I have some plans to photograph indoor sport. It was a tough call, but I tipped it to the 200. I will look at selling the Sigma 150-500 and some other bits and then to pick up a 300 or 400 f/2.8 when a great deal comes along and the pennies permit.

So thanks ! Come on Fedex! With my luck it will arrive on Friday in southern Finland and then they sit on it until Monday