Long, mid-priced primes: Who uses them and why?

[marc_lieberman1]

200mm f/2.8. 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. Who chooses these lenses over high quality zooms with the same reach and why? Do they do a good job of isolating a subject at maximum aperture (unlike inexpensive, slow zooms) or does one need and additional stop to acheive breath-taking sports and wildlife shots?

[pjmeade]

I've got the 300/4 IS. I wanted a long lens that I could use for sport and general photography. I chose that one because it's less than a third the cost of the 300/2.8. I went with a prime because I need the longer length and because I have zooms that range from 17 to 200mm.

 

Would I consider a zoom that goes to 300 mm? No, an L prime is going to be sharper than an non L zoom.

 

Does the 300/4 isolate a subject from the background? Yes

 

<a href=" title="IMG_9166_F by Peter Meade, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1380/577121032_1fac08a087.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="IMG_9166_F" /></a>

 

Wildlife? You can add the 1.4x and still get pretty good results there too:

 

<a href=" title="Mute Swan - Cygnus olor by Peter Meade, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/342914852_5ae1eaa916.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="Mute Swan - Cygnus olor" /></a>

 

Sports? Yes

 

<a href=" title="Inzamam-ul-Haq by Peter Meade, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/335165556_e3ff7d8d22.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Inzamam-ul-Haq" /></a>

 

Hope this helps.

 

P

[pjmeade]

I must remember to add some HTML tags when I do that. Sorry :-)

[myrjola]

I bought an (used, but I had eventually purchased a new one if I wouldn't have had the oppoturnity to get a secondhand one) 200mm f/2.8L last year for the purpose of occasional astrophotography; the 70-300 DO works well enough for my general tele needs, but it's somewhat slow for that kind of usage. And even though the DO image quality wasn't too bad, the prime will do a bit better.

 

(Naturally, the weather has been pretty horrible most of the fall and the early winter, so I've had very few oppoturnities to actually use it, Murphy strikes again...)

[ralph_jensen]

"200mm f/2.8. 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. Who chooses these lenses over high quality zooms with the same reach and why?"

 

Image quality, weight, size, obtrusiveness, and price.

[lester_wareham]

Sharper and cope with a 2X TC much better, smaller, lighter, better performance with tubes.

 

Other than the 2X issue most of the L zoom seem very good however and not bad with a 1.4X.

[stillbound]

it's been hit on already but i'll throw down real quick...

 

the 200 2.8 is sharper than the 70-200<b>

 

the 300 4 is sharper than the 70-200 with a 1.4<b>

 

the 400 5.6 is not my fave and if i was going to buy this i would probably just buy the 100-400 zoom but the 400 5.6 is probably still sharper...and focuses faster as do the others..

[ken munn]

I used a 400 f5.6 on a safari holiday. Great.

[seragram]

Canon 200mmL 2.8 prime cause it is lighter and I would be using the long end of a zoom must of the time anyway if I own one. Same reason I may choose the 400mmL 5.6.

Attached pic was made wide open at 2.8.<div></div>

[photographicsafaris]

Marc,

<br>Primarily, because of the chosen charateristics of each lens's focal length. The three

you have mentioned are actually excellent lenses (except the 400's speed) and almost have

a single specific purpose

<p>Each focal length has a desired effect upon the picture in addition to these qualities

below:

<br>Current price compared to the zoom, or faster lens

<br>Future resale value

<br>Dust ingress over time

<br>Quality

<p>

Ironically I sold my two 300mm prime, when I brought the 100-400 zoom which is very

very good, because I wasnt using them enough to justify holding onto them (f4 and f2.8

Sigma's) HAd I forked out 3000 quid might be a different story.

<br>Having said that I want the 135L f2. I would use it with the 1.4x to get a 200 f2.8

lens, additionally I want an 85mm f1.8 yet I have a 28-70L, the 100macro, 70-200 f4 and

a 100-400L covering this range with some fast apertures, f2.8.

<p>

Having a zoom can be viewed two ways, in a pinch it gets you out of a bind if you cant get

closer or further away, you can at least get that shot.

<br>On the other hand, having a prime forces you to move a bit and possibly think about

things more maybe leading to getting a better angle, because you are forced to find a

different position

<p>

Its like golf, you could take an entire suite of 18 clubs, but to shoot your handicap, you

should be able to hit it regularly with only 5 clubs.

<br>On a safari, you could get away with the 200mm f2.8 and a 1.4x extender with a

28mm wide. But you'd want more choices because getting out the car to walk closer to

those lions....

<p>

Cheers G

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I used to have the 300/4L IS USM. I bought it to replace the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM. I decided to replace the 100-300 because it wasn't sharp enough and lacked IS. I also found that I was rarely using it as anything other than a 300, and often wished it were longer. I was planning on getting the 100-400 but ended up getting the 300 for a combination of a few reasons:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Supposedly somewhat better optics. Not that the 100-400 is supposed to be bad, but I'd found a number of opinions that the 300 was sharper, which shouldn't be surprising when comparing a prime to a zoom (even an L one).

<li>Better handling; I played with the 100-400 a few times and didn't like its handling

<li>An extra stop is never a bad thing; when you don't need it, you can always stop down, but when you do need it, there's no substitute.

<li>I found a used 300/4 in great condition at a good price

</ul>

 

<p>A little while later, I added the 1.4x II to fix the problem of 300 not being long enough.</p>

 

<p>I ended up getting rid of the 300; when I went digital with a 1.6-crop body, the 300 was too long most of the time. In a world without monetary constraints, I'd have kept the 300; it has so much going for it (great optics, quick AF, and it's relatively easy to carry and hold). But in reality, the 70-200/2.8L IS USM wasn't cheap, so I sold the 300 to help pay for the 70-200.</p>

 

<p>Some sample pictures, which I'm sure illustrate that this lens is a better lens than I am a photographer:</p>

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1292Horseface.jpg">Closeup of a horse's face</a>

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1571Meerkat.jpg">Meerkat</a>

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1304Snowleopardhidinginfoliage.jpg">Snow leopard</a>

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/friends_and_family/1563Dee.jpg">My (then-) girlfriend</a>

</ul>

[mark u]

The 200 is smaller, less conspicuous and sharper than a 70-200 f/2.8 (either version). The 300 offers IS and close focus (enhanced with a tube) - not available in the quality f/4 zoom competitor (100-300 f/4 Sigma), and as Peter demonstrated gives good IQ with a 1.4xTC. The 400 f/5.6 is perhaps the best tool for shooting birds in flight, since it is not unwieldy for its length, is sharper than the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, and will track focus better than the 300 f/4 + TC. When you need fast shutter speeds as light levels drop or you need extra background separation because the subject is too close to the background, the faster primes come into their own.

[William Michael]

>>> 200mm f/2.8. 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. Who chooses these lenses over high quality zooms with the same reach and why? <<<

 

Specifically:

 

The 200F2.8: (hired) because it is black, not grey like my 70 to 200F2.8 hence less conspicuous for Weddings, Concerts and the like, (and lighter and shorter too). I will not buy this lens (yet): but get the 135F2L instead.

 

The 300F4IS: (hired and one of my next personal purchases) because there is no zoom as fast; it is exceptionally cheap (by comparison) and it is a cracker within the x1.4MkII.

 

The 400F5.6 I would not buy, because it does not have IS.

 

To the more general question, why telephoto prime over telephoto zoom, as my priorities:

 

1. Lens speed and all that accomplishes and implies.

 

2. Image quality (including with tele extenders).

 

3. Price.

 

4. Weight.

 

WW