# 400, 200 or...?



## luoto (Sep 7, 2012)

Hi. I have got the option on a couple of lens, just don't know which one to attack first.

(I already have a 70-200 usm II 2.8 and other lens for the purposes of background). Moving up to a 5d3 from a 600d so selling the ef-s lens in due course.

Lens I have option on (all used, prices are pre haggle, incl. estimation of freight and customs fees)

Canon f2.0 IS 200mm, price about 5k USD
Canon EF400 IS USM I f2.8 (not the latest sadly), price about 6k USD
Canon EF500 IS USM I f4 prob about 7.5k.

Now the latter is probably going to push the bank a bit.

I will be shooting a bit more indoor stuff and had thought the extra 1 stop would be worth it at 200. But the 400mm would also be good for shooting some outdoor sport stuff as well. It is a 50:50 call really (unless the good lady agrees and I can sell the other lens). 

I also have the Sigma 150-500 f5.6 to whatever thingy. That might get 5-600 bucks.

My main though was towards the 400mm, allowing at worst case (!) use of a 1.4 or 2 to get up to 800 / f5.6.

Dilemma dilemma... 

I appreciate both are "older" lens but not so old as to be a problem for support (?). Both conditions are relatively good and main thing is optics are good/they've been serviced/no mushrooms growing etc. I know the 400mm is a tad heavier but I can't justify 11k for the new sexy one either.

I need to decide within the next day or so and hope no one has jumped the gun on me.

Assume that the shooting mix is the same at 200 and 400 to make things "level". Is it better to lose one stop at 200mm and gain it at 400mm as I am thinking? The older 2 stop IS (?) on the 400 is not a problem per se (unless someone gives me the new one for the same price, dream) as it will be on a Wimberley head in any case).

So,, care to help a man come closer to some form of sense ? 

Thanks.


p.s. had thought in my dreams about the 200-400 that one day might see the light of day. I think on my budget I can rule that out


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 7, 2012)

I know I'd get the 200 F/2. Its the sharpest lens canon has ever made, and its THE PORTRAIT LENS.

As for sports, F/2 will stop action better if you can get closer.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 7, 2012)

i vote for the 400mm2.8.


----------



## Menace (Sep 7, 2012)

If its mainly indoor stuff, I'd go with the 200 f2


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Sep 7, 2012)

They're entirely different lenses, intended for entirely different purposes. And, honestly, if you don't know which is right for you, then neither are -- it's rather like wondering if you're better off getting a forklift or a dump truck to supplement your SUV.

Use the gear you've got, and wait until you're regularly complaining to yourself, "If only I had such-and-such, I could have gotten that shot." _Then_ go ahead and buy whatever such-and-such was.

Either that, or, if this is just a toy, go with whichever one you think will be more fun. Nothing worng with that.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## charlesa (Sep 7, 2012)

I was in the same situation recently, and ended up buying a second hand 400 mm f/2.8 L IS. Cannot be happier, shoot mostly outdoors, and although IQ is a bit inferior with a 2xTC III attached, it is still fast to AF on a 1DX


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 8, 2012)

charlesa said:


> I was in the same situation recently, and ended up buying a second hand 400 mm f/2.8 L IS. Cannot be happier, shoot mostly outdoors, and although IQ is a bit inferior with a 2xTC III attached, it is still fast to AF on a 1DX



200 f/2 for indoor basketball/volleyball/track
300 f/2.8 for footbal, soccer, or tennis courts that are caged in chain-link fence (not bitter about that or anything )
400 f/2.8 for soccer and football, and probably track outdoors

And as you can see, totally different uses. 200 f/2 probably is the best Canon lens period.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 8, 2012)

I rented them all and for the mix of shots I take, the 200 f/2 provides the best flexibilty. It works best indoor and I shoot a lot of night and overcast lacrosse games from the sidelines and the 1.6 crop plus the larger aperture gets me great shots. I can sacrifice some IQ with a 1.4x II but 280 f/2.8 still allows me to get the sideline shots. Pairing it with the 2x II is acceptable to me with the resulting 400 f/4. Again, slightly lower quality but I get the shot when I need it. Now that I got FF, the 200 f/2 opens up the indoor sports and portrait shots. If your shooting conditions will vary and you need the flexibility of a 200, 300, and 400 but your can't afford 3 pricey primes, use the 200 f/2 as your base lens. If you are shooting SI or NG quality, chances are you can afford the 300, 400, 600, and 800 lenses.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 8, 2012)

Because you already have 70-200 2.8 is II, I just can't see going for a 200mm prime. Because you shoot a lot indoors I can't see getting a 500mm lens at f/4. It is not bright enough and honestly it is too long also. 
I'd have to say you should go 400 f/2.8.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 8, 2012)

In my situation, I was aperture limited by my 70-200 f/2.8 so a 300 f/2.8 would just mean longer reach but same aperture issue. The 200 f/2 gave me an additional stop to maintain both my DOF and shutter speed for sports shots while keeping the ISO noise down. Decide on your lens based on where you expect to do the bulk of your shooting. If most of your shots are daylight, decide on what length you need. If you are going to be shooting a substantial amount at twilight, overcast, or night lights, decide on your aperture based on your camera's ISO capability.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 8, 2012)

luoto said:


> Hi. I have got the option on a couple of lens, just don't know which one to attack first.
> 
> (I already have a 70-200 usm II 2.8 and other lens for the purposes of background). Moving up to a 5d3 from a 600d so selling the ef-s lens in due course.
> 
> ...


Moving from the 600D to the 5D3 will convert your current "112-320mm" lens into a 70-200mm lens, due to going from 1.6x crop to FF. The 400mm is quite long on a crop body (640mm), but I believe* that it will be more useful on a FF body.

I agree with ScottyP about the single stop on the 200/2, never mind that it's supposed to be totally awesome.
The 400/2.8 IS Mk I *is* a heavy beast. Get a sturdy CF tripod and a gimbal head.

*) Haven't had a chance to test the 400mm on my 5D3 yet, so this is based on extrapolation from my current 70-200mm experience.


----------



## luoto (Sep 8, 2012)

Thanks for the replies so far.

The problem is that the stuff I am shooting so far it not clear cut (i.e. just portraits indoor) and I /do/ intend to do more sports-type shooting. I thought I had managed to articulate the dilemma but not enough judging by the toy comment 

In the distant past (days of the Canon/Kodak DCS520 built on a 1 body) I had then the Canon 500mm (just can't remember after 10+ years the model, I thought it had IS but..) and I know the weight! The "main" reason for the 200 was the extra stop that might help (I was in a school gymnasium the other day and their overhead lights were, frankly, pants). Even a f1.8 85mm lens was struggling to give me anything useful. 

Both would be ideal answer, but I suspect that might not be the current best answer for domestic peace. I think the 400mm does have the edge as I've suspected all along. I know that and a TC won't be as fast as a 2012 model in AF and the like, but I suspect it will still overall give more keepers than a f5.6 at the same focal length.

So, despite being good (for its age) is the version 1 400mm still "respectable" and not a "bad buy" if you don't have the difference in money to buy the version 2.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 8, 2012)

The 400mm IS Mk I is an excellent lens, no questions about that!
That was what photographers said to Canon when they started out designing the Mk II: keep the sharpness, but shed weight and add the modern IS (4 stop).

If you don't have something planned where you need the 400mm, I'd suggest you to wait until you have that specific need. Might even keep SWMBO happy


----------



## Michael_pfh (Sep 8, 2012)

You should go for the 400L.


----------



## luoto (Sep 8, 2012)

Planned is a very subjective term  Certainly there are things I could use it for (that is why I bought the interim Sigma 150-500 but saw the limitations straight away - but the only other option in FInland was a 11,000 odd Euro lens, so it was a no brainer)  

I didn't win the lottery last night either, so the decision is harder for sure.

Luckily where we are there is a lot of wonderful, beautiful nature. I think the decision is made "harder" as I read so many negative things about the tele convertors. When I had my 500mm lens in the early 2000s it worked well for me with a 1.4 and 2.0x convertor, but then things were a bit simpler then now. 

I guess I am trying to also avoid buying say the mark II convertors when the price difference is not "half" to the III version, if there is better AF for the 5d3 BUT on the new USM II lens. OK I don't have them, except the 70-200 and maybe eventually the 24-70... But then if I can afford a new 9k to 11k USM II lens (thanks lottery) maybe a new extender is not going to break the bank if there is then any discernable really benefit to upgrade 

I wish it was a case of saying I do 70% portrait and want to do a bit of long distance work. But then the balance to what I do / want to do is so close to 50:50. I could rationalise out the 300 and probably the 500 (but if anyone wants free recycling of working lens I can arrange freight (grin). Two sweet spots, one difficult decision. 

Yes, I realise it is a lucky position to be in. It still feels bad being "able" to put down even several thousand on a lens when there are people having crap lives/out of work and then there is the stuff going on in "third world". But I am not an eternal communist or wear my heart on a sleeve  I guess I have worked hard but... Anyway, moralising over. I do appreciate the great thoughts being given to me. Must decide by Monday and then go in with the "hard cash"!


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 8, 2012)

kaihp said:


> Moving from the 600D to the 5D3 will convert your current "112-320mm" lens into a 70-200mm lens, due to going from 1.6x crop to FF.



Agree. The change to a FF body is going to change your field of view significantly (like removing a teleconverter). On a FF body, your 70-200 will become a very versatile and effective portrait lens indoor and out. 

For longer reach, I would recommend a *300mm f2.8 L IS *and a *1.4x II teleconverter*. The 300 will capture back the focal length you lose changing to the FF body while maintaining your 2.8 aperture. The 1.4x II will give you a 420 f4, fast and very accurate, especially when compared to the Sigma.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Sep 8, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > Moving from the 600D to the 5D3 will convert your current "112-320mm" lens into a 70-200mm lens, due to going from 1.6x crop to FF.
> ...



Luoto, since you're determined to make a snap decision, I gotta say, this advice from IIIHobbs is the best you've gotten so far.

You'll still have 200 mm covered with your 70-200. Yes, the 200 f/2 is a much better 200 mm lens than the 70-200, but the 70-200 is still a superlative 200 mm lens. The 300 f/2.8 is still fast and will give you the reach I have a hunch you'll be wanting most of the time, and you can turn it into a 400 f/4 that'll give the DO 400 f/4 a run for its money with the teleconverter.

If, after shooting with it for a while, you discover that you really wanted something with more reach or more speed, you can sell the 300 for likely as much as you pay for it, and maybe even a couple pennies more. Big Whites hold their value superbly, and any depreciation you might eventually suffer will be significantly less than it would cost you to rent it.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## luoto (Sep 8, 2012)

Thanks. Well there's snap decisions and snap decisions. I have managed to "avoid" buying the 5d3 for a month so far whilst hoping that the price drops a tad. Waiting for Fotokina in case...

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?

As the 300 is less reach, would not the same be achieved with the 200mm f2 and a 1.4 convertor (340mm f2.8) as another person has indicated what I have read elsewhere that the 200mm is excellent for portraits. 

I had "put away" the 300mm from my thoughts (prior to you raising it) as I had thought 340mm f2.8 would be an "interim" if necessary if I bought the f2 or f4 (if I used the 70-200) and the 400 f2.8 would at least give 560mm f4 and 800mm f5.6 with convertors. 

I appreciate that opinions are like politics so I am welcoming all views. If only the lottery had came in then there would be no decisions. A lorry could come with the 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600  But dreaming on...

Kind regards, Luoto


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 8, 2012)

The 200 f/2 can be a 280 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 with the TCs. The 300 f/2,8 can be a 420 f/4 or 600 f/5.6 and the 400 f2.8 can be a 560 f/4 or 800 f/5.6. The 400 f/4 can give you a 560 f/4 or 800 f/8 MF.

Your decision should be based on which combinations you are likely to shoot most and which gives you the most flexibility. We are all purists and opinionated as to IQ but it is your bottom line. What will give you the shots you want. It's senseless to get a lens that doesn't fit your shooting profile just because it is the best lens.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Sep 8, 2012)

Once you are adding a teleconverter you are slowing down the AF significantly - however as long as you are not intending to shoot birds in flight, other fast moving wildlife, sports or action (e.g. kids) you will be pleased with the 300+TC option...


----------



## luoto (Sep 8, 2012)

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 (Sep 8, 2012)

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 (Sep 8, 2012)

tiger82 said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2012)

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 (Sep 8, 2012)

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 (Sep 8, 2012)

tiger82 said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2012)

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 (Sep 8, 2012)

I like this thread


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 8, 2012)

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 (Sep 8, 2012)

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


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 8, 2012)

luoto said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2012)

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


----------

