70-200mm f4L vs 200mm f2.8L (vs 70-200 f4L IS?)

[phixional ninja]

I find myself faced with a conundrum, and I turn to you, CR crowd, for advice.

I currently own (and love) the 70-200mm f4L (non-IS). I would like, however, to have better low light performance. The question is, should I sell it and get the 200mm f2.8L, or save a bit more and upgrade to the 70-200mm f4L IS?

My thoughts go thusly: with the 200mm f2.8L, I gain a stop, get better depth of field control, a sharper image (I think?), and have a slightly shorter, black lens (I know it's a tad heavier, but it's the conspicuousness for street photography I'm more concerned with). With the 70-200 f4L IS, I gain 4(ish) stops, but they do me no good with stopping motion, and I get no help on depth of field. I do get some weather sealing, which might be nice, but isn't a huge deal (I finally have at least one weather sealed lens to play in the rain with, so this one doesn't need to be).

Current numbers: 64.4% of my shots with my 70-200mm were at 200mm. Another 18% were taken at 70mm (where I'm guessing I'd have been better off switching to my 50mm f1.4 anyway). Additionally, 75% of the shots at 200mm were taken at f4, and I'd imagine most would have been better at f2.8 (though obviously not all).

I do all sorts of photography: macro, landscapes, portraits, studio... really anything. I'd like to get in to street photography more as well (I've done some with the 70-200, but the bigness and whiteness are very eye catching. I also did a little recently with my 100mm f2.8L, and felt more comfortable).

Would the creative flexibility offered by f2.8 be greater than the flexibility of having zoom and extra stops (but only with stationary targets)? I love both my 50mm f1.4 and 100mm f2.8L (the latter of which I got at the end of December, and hasn't left my camera since then), so I know I can get along with primes.

I realize the more perfect answer would be one of the 70-200mm f2.8Ls, but I don't think the weight/cost/conspicuousness are for me just yet.

If anybody has experience with these lenses and can offer advice one way or the other, I would really appreciate it. If anybody can specifically speak to relative AF speed, that would be great (I've played around with tracking birds in flight, and had a lot of fun with it. Would the 200mm keep up the way the 70-200 does?) I realize that in the end, I'm the only one who can know what lens is right for me, but reading a variety of opinions is always helpful.

Thanks!

EDIT: added info about aperture stats, and question about AF speed.

 

[karminator]

It really depends on what you are shooting. I would consider the 135 f/2L. Amazing lens. It gives you two more stops, and isn't a big white lens to attract attention for street photography.

However, if most of your shots are at 200, you would need to be getting in a bit closer to the subject.

 

[phixional ninja]

It really depends on what you are shooting. I would consider the 135 f/2L. Amazing lens. It gives you two more stops, and isn't a big white lens to attract attention for street photography.

However, if most of your shots are at 200, you would need to be getting in a bit closer to the subject.

I've looked at the 135mm. It looks like an absolutely stunning lens, but I don't know that it's different enough from the 100mm f2.8L to justify buying it. I really like having the 200mm reach, both for street photography and wildlife.

 

[katwil]

That’s a tough call. I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 200 f/2.8. If I know I’m going to be shooting at 200mm 75% of the time I’ll take the 200mm and hope I can crop my subject down if needed. I’ve had better results with the 200mm than either the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. The bokeh is quite good on the prime. Having said that, your kit would have a huge hole between 100mm and 200mm. If you can live with that, (which I could not) the 200mm prime would be a good choice.

Sorry, I can’t speak to the wildlife photography. Most of my time with the 200mm is spent at evening baseball games.

 

[phixional ninja]

I’ve had better results with the 200mm than either the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.

Could you expand on this? More keepers, better image quality (sharpness, contrast, color), more fun?

Having said that, your kit would have a huge hole between 100mm and 200mm. If you can live with that, (which I could not) the 200mm prime would be a good choice.

...I think I could? Since less than 20% of my shots with the 70-200mm are actually between 70mm and 200mm, it looks like I'm not using that middle range much. Generally, I feel like I need all the reach I can get for smaller/farther away subjects, and getting closer to something is often harder (or less desirable) than backing up.

Sorry, I can’t speak to the wildlife photography. Most of my time with the 200mm is spent at evening baseball games.

Do you use AI servo focus at all for that? How's the focus speed for running players? I feel like athletes and wildlife are more similar than not for taking pictures (though athletes do tend to cooperatively stay in a preordained location).

 

[PCM-Madison]

I own both the 200mm f2.8 (mark I) and the 70-200mm f4 IS USM. For my copies of these lenses, the 200mm f2.8 is clearly superior in contrast, sharpness, and resolution (under controlled conditions on a tripod with constant lighting), but both deliver excellent results hand held under real world conditions. I generally find the zoom flexibility and IS a big advantage for the 70-200 under most conditions. However, for fast moving people or wildlife, the 200 f2.8 focuses faster and tracks better using AI servo focus on my 60D. I get very satisfying results with both lenses and the zoom is mounted on my camera more often.

 

[cfargo]

Why don't you consider the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II?

 

[phixional ninja]

I own both the 200mm f2.8 (mark I) and the 70-200mm f4 IS USM. For my copies of these lenses, the 200mm f2.8 is clearly superior in contrast, sharpness, and resolution (under controlled conditions on a tripod with constant lighting), but both deliver excellent results hand held under real world conditions. I generally find the zoom flexibility and IS a big advantage for the 70-200 under most conditions. However, for fast moving people or wildlife, the 200 f2.8 focuses faster and tracks better using AI servo focus on my 60D. I get very satisfying results with both lenses and the zoom is mounted on my camera more often.

Great information, thanks! I've been quite happy with the focus tracking performance of my 70-200mm, so hearing that the 200mm is even better is certainly of interest.

Why don't you consider the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II?

I tried to head this one off at the pass, but I realize I buried it deep in my post:

I realize the more perfect answer would be one of the 70-200mm f2.8Ls, but I don't think the weight/cost/conspicuousness are for me just yet.

 

[bycostello]

IS is worth about 2 stops..

 

[JR]

In terms of sharpnest the 135L has no equal. I really think it is very different from the 100 macro (sharper and 1 stop better). You should compare on the TDP site the difference between a 135L+1.4xIII extender to the quality of the 200mm 2.8 you refer to. Maybe the 135L with the flexibility to use an extender would be good for you.

 

[katwil]

I’ve had better results with the 200mm than either the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.

Could you expand on this? More keepers, better image quality (sharpness, contrast, color), more fun?

Color is a big factor. In the photo I'll post below, I saw two coaches with slightly different colored tops and thought that looked odd. Turns out I got that plus the contrast between the skin tones and the warning track in the background. It’s not a great shot, but it illustrates the color as well as the depth of field that comes with f/2.8 aperture. The simplicity of the 200mm with shots like this is a plus. It took me less than five seconds to identify the subject and take the shot. Photo details: 40D, f/2.8, 1/125, ISO 1000, Indoors

Sorry, I can’t speak to the wildlife photography. Most of my time with the 200mm is spent at evening baseball games.

Do you use AI servo focus at all for that? How's the focus speed for running players? I feel like athletes and wildlife are more similar than not for taking pictures (though athletes do tend to cooperatively stay in a preordained location).

I don’t use Servo much because what I’m trying to follow is a little white ball travelling around 90 mph. That’s just my personal preference. Often I’ll turn off AF entirely and shoot at spots, like First Base or Home Plate. There, the 2.8 comes in handy with minimum depth of field plus a higher shutter speed.

 

[photalian]

the 70-200 f4 is so much lens for the money. if you shoot mostly in studio or outdoors I think it's more than enough. If you're shooting mainly sports, go for the f2.8

 

[adebrophy]

An old topic but thanks all for posting. I could have written the OP's original query - same situation really - also have the 100 f2.8 L, have a non-IS 70-200 f4 but do a fair amount of conferences where its all f4 and 200mm so really considering the 200 f2.8 for that.

I just went out with the 100mm to do street and wished I'd had a 200mm for reach (and also love the non white aspect too).

I'd be interested what the our OP ninja went for in the end and how you found it?

I guess the real question is if you can get a 200mm f2.8 at £550 used, is there any reason not to pull the trigger when the f4is zoom is much more pricey?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It really depends on what you are shooting. I would consider the 135 f/2L. Amazing lens. It gives you two more stops, and isn't a big white lens to attract attention for street photography.

However, if most of your shots are at 200, you would need to be getting in a bit closer to the subject.

I've looked at the 135mm. It looks like an absolutely stunning lens, but I don't know that it's different enough from the 100mm f2.8L to justify buying it. I really like having the 200mm reach, both for street photography and wildlife.

A 70-200mm close to min focus distance looses a bit of focal length. The Canon variants are better than most in this regard, but it does loose a bit. Neither of the primes loose much focal length at MFD, but it's interesting that the 135L close to MFD needs only a few steps forwards to make the same framing of a 70-200mm lens on the same subject @ 200mm. So often at weddings, I get more milage out of the 135L and moving about abit.
If you are in a fixed position and don't have the luxury of moving about then a 70-200 makes more sence.
The non is F4 lens is very capable, although it's quite old. The newer IS version is a toally new optical design and is a peach of a lens. It's optical quality close to the mkII f2.8 version, although it looses a stop but is a heck of a lot lighter and smaller. Given my choice I'd have the 135L. if I needed longer, pop a 1.4x TC on it or pop it on a 1.6x crop camera. If I needed a zoom, then either the 75-300L (a very underated lens) or the 70-200mm f4 L IS would be my choices. Naturally, its' your money and your choice....only you can work out what you really need. If you are caught between two lenses it's usually becuase you really want/need both.