I'm mulling over 2 lenses (70-200mm f/2.8L USM or the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II)

[jdramirez]

I also have heard that they do allow slr's but the white zooms are persona non grata.

Once again the Nikon-Crowd wins!

Probably. But I like when I watch tv that I can spot a Canon lens. I have no clue which lens the other guys are using.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I've owned both, and would recommend both.

I kind of preferred the fixed 200mm, I felt that, for stills at least, it was the faster lens to use. This is as simple as, I couldn't waste time zooming, so spent more time shooting.

It's less flexible, and 200mm/320mm is going to be too long for some situations.

I loved this lens because it made my humble XTi really come to life. It was exceptionally fast focusing with centre point AF / Ai Servo and the lens focus limiter on. I got the genuine canon tripod ring as well which made the lens handle really really nicely on a monopod as well.

I think at 200mm the prime has a very slight optical edge over the 70-200 f2.8L, but then the 70-200 offers you all the other focal lengths and is excellent accross the range.

I really love using my 70-200 f2.8L, it was really an essential switch for me as I use my gear for video, and have no real regrets.

If I was buying for stills only, I would go with the fixed 200. I only had it short while on my 7D, but what a combo!

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

Obviously there are similarities in focal length and aperture. Neither have image stabilization. I have heard the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135... which raises the question, is the additional range I will get worth the additional 400 dollars. I've already bought the 70-200, so I've answered my question, but I got it as such a good price, that I could sell it within a matter of days and then just get the 200 prime.

At the moment, I am shooting a ton of football games (pee-wee level). And I imagine I will be shooting indoor girls basketball games here in the next few weeks.

I already have a 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.

Any advice is appreciated. If the 200mm prime is incredibly sharp wide open... or isn't head and shoulders better than the 70-200mm... I'll stick with the zoom. But I also don't want to use the 135-200mm range and be so disappointed that I never bother to use the lens.

With the kind of images you like to shoot, the zoom will better serve you. The 200mm is good, but you'll likely miss more opportunities/shots than with the zoom. Keep the zoom, use it for a while before finally making a decision.

 

[jdramirez]

So I'm a pretty big guy WITH ripply muscles... and I just have to say... OH MY! It's heavy and I can see why people complain about the size... but I really kinda like how big it is.