Need advice: EF 70-200 f/4 L vs. EF 200 f/2.8 L

Greetings, and thanks in advance for recommendations about which of these two great lens choices to consider. I

have read the archives here to check on similar inquiried, but I still have a few questions.

 

I am familiar with the EF 70-200 F/4 L lens, and rented one this weekend to pan motorcycle racers speeding by at a

sporting event. The results were impressive with shots where my focus was tack sharp, with great contrast and color

saturation. So now I want one, or something similar, as my longest lens I currently own is the EF 100 macro. I

briefly considered the EF 75-300, but prefer something faster, and ideally an L lens.

 

I usually prefer a prime lens, so my question has to do with purchasing either the EF 70-200 f/4 L or the EF 200 f/2.8

L. Both are L models and are priced in the same range. The 200 f/2.8 prime probably has fewer glass elements, is

lighter, and is probably a littler sharper.

 

At the motorcycle race, I never used the 70-200 zoom feature, but shot everything at the long end at 200mm.

Therefore, the zoom option wasn't really a benefit for me, and probably wouldn't be a strong reason for me to want

the 70-200 for that convenience alone. Instead, I care more about optical quality, and dont mind changng lens or

using "feet" zoom.

 

Is there anything I'm overlooking in thinking the 200 f/2.8 L may serve me better than the 70-200?

 

Again, thanks for all advice from users of either lens.

I've used both but owe neither so take these thoughts with that in consideration.

 

The 200 2.8 is smaller, lighter, and has a closer minimum focusing distance. Personally I think I'd consider the 70-200 f/4 IS rather than the f/4 without IS. I think the 2.8 is more usefull and when buying $1000 lenses one should shoot for the most versatile item they can. In the end though all of these sort of "which L should I get" decisions are questions of taste so get what you like and get what feels good.

 

~Andrew

>>>"At the motorcycle race, I never used the 70-200 zoom feature, but shot everything at the long end at 200mm. Therefore, the zoom option wasn't really a benefit for me, and probably wouldn't be a strong reason for me to want the 70-200 for that convenience alone. Instead, I care more about optical quality, and dont mind changng lens or using "feet" zoom."<<<<

 

I think you answered your own question....

 

>>>>"Is there anything I'm overlooking in thinking the 200 f/2.8 L may serve me better than the 70-200?"<<<

 

Other than useing it for other than motorcycle races that may benifit greatly from a zoom.

 

Jason

>> At the motorcycle race, I never used the 70-200 zoom feature, but shot everything at the long end at 200mm.

 

What aperture were most of your pictures at?

 

If you're always maxing out your zoom range (never using the 70-199mm), then that could be an indication that you might enjoy a longer reach... maybe something like the 100-400mm Canon L IS or the Sigma 50-500mm (Bigma).

 

If your motorcycle races are typically during bright days, and most of your shots were f/5.6 - f/8, then you might not need a f/2.8 or f/4 lens. But if most of your shots were already at f/4, then the longer lenses suggested above may not be fast enough.

 

One EXIF tool that I use that you might find interesting...

"EXIF Image Viewer"

http://home.pacbell.net/michal_k/exif_v.html

 

It creates a spreadsheet of the EXIF settings for all images in a folder. I always find it interesting to see what settings I used. I also use it to gauge how often I'm bumping into the limits of my lenses.

 

I have the 70-200mm f/4L IS and absolutely love it (IMHO 10x better than the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L that I upgraded from and ~5x better than the 70-300mm IS non-L that I also previously owned). But I keep my 50-500mm Bigma for when I want the extra reach... but usually in bright daylight and with a monopod or tripod.

If you were looking into the IS version of the 70-200 it would be different. Then again the IS would not be much benifit for the type of photography you have described anyway. So, the 200 f2.8 is a clear winner here based on the info you provided. The f2.8 will be a nice advantage over f4.

 

Jason

Just want to say I think you'll be very happy with the 200mm 2.8 L. I have this lens and really love it. For most uses its hand holdable. When in doubt, a monopod works well. Along with being deadly sharp, having a fast 2.8 and being lighter than the zoom, it comes in a much preferable color.

At twice the focal length of the 100, the 200/2.8 will fit in nicely with it. I used a 200/2.8 prime lens for 17 years and loved it. I also used it for motorsports and often with a 2x converter. When I had a 80-200mm zoom I also found I was always at 200mm. The EF 200/2.8 should perform extremely well with a 1.4x converter down the road if you find you want even more reach, and still at a reasonable f4. 1.6x DSLRs make the 200/2.8 even more useful.

 

 

I currently own only prime lenses from 14mm to 400mm. I tend to build a set of lenses by doubling the focal lengths and find I do not miss much in between. Currently I have 14, 28, 50, 135, 200, 400 and a 1.4x but find I could use 20mm and 300mm.

> Is there anything I'm overlooking in thinking the 200 f/2.8 L may serve me better than the 70-200? <

 

From the information supplied in your question: IMO, No.

 

WW

I have both and if you do NOT need the zoom go for the prime, it's one of the best 200mm lens around, period.