Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #7 · Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4X: Quick Comparison |
I realize you said "too many" but I for one did. Once I got the 70-200 II, I sold the 200 F2. There was just no need for it for my purposes. Yes, it was amazing, but the weight penalty ( I walked the "streets/hills of San Francisco with it for a week) wasn't worth the difference.
That said, you are right. Sharpness is not the be all and end all. Important, sure. But this for some, me included, is a real dilemma. I've been wanting the new 500 for a while now. This puts a huge kink in that...Show more →
Markey, yes, 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII is more suitable as a walk around lens than 200 f/2 IS, I give you that.
Regarding your dilemma 200-400L vs. 500 MkII, it always obviously comes down to what you need the lens for. If we are talking about handheld use, 500 II is quite a bit easier to handle. It also seems to have a better AF response as well as IQ. (I've written "seems" because I haven't shot much with the zoom at all, therefore its performance assessment is still largely tentative in my mind.)
If you plan to shoot wildlife/birds, you are more likely to be short of FL, than having too much of it. In that regard too, 500 II is better than 200-400L.
For safaris, zoo and such photography the zoom will probably be the ticket. Also for sports, I guess, although I just can't see a massive switch from 400 f/2.8 IS to 200-400L by sports photographers.