200mm prime vs 20-200mm zoom at 200mm?

Hey PT,

Quick question for me, if you have a 70-200mm f/2.8.  Is there any benefit to getting a 200mm prime lens?  

Would there be any difference between that 70-200 focused to 200mm vs the 200mm prime?  

The prime will be sharper. It may not be a lot, but it should be sharper. You just need to compare and decide if the extra bit of sharpness is needed. Majority of the time that answer is no.

I got over prime's long ago. First off, unless you really are a fine art photographer, the chance's of anyone noticing the difference in sharpness between the two is pretty small next is with the prime, it seem's your never in the right spot and you have to move around a bunch to find that spot, with a zoom you simply zoom. Primes are usually a lot more expensive than most zoom's but a 70-200 2.8 isn't gonna be cheap. And to cover the range of 70-200 with primes mean's your gonna have to haul more weight around. You obviously can't cover 70mm to 200mm with one 200mm prime lens. I've never had a 2.8 lens. First I simply couldn't afford them and then it occured to me that if you need an aperture of 2.8, you really need more light! Buy a flash!

Don Fischer wrote: I got over prime's long ago. First off, unless you really are a fine art photographer, the chance's of anyone noticing the difference in sharpness between the two is pretty small next is with the prime, it seem's your never in the right spot and you have to move around a bunch to find that spot, with a zoom you simply zoom. Primes are usually a lot more expensive than most zoom's but a 70-200 2.8 isn't gonna be cheap. And to cover the range of 70-200 with primes mean's your gonna have to haul more weight around. You obviously can't cover 70mm to 200mm with one 200mm prime lens. I've never had a 2.8 lens. First I simply couldn't afford them and then it occured to me that if you need an aperture of 2.8, you really need more light! Buy a flash!

I'm with you 100%. Go for the less expensive and more usable alternative in the zoom lens.

I owned a 18-200 and have a 200 f/4...NO comparison, the prime killed it. I own a 70-300 and a 300 f/4...NO comparison, the prime kills it. How much will you use the 70-200 at the long end, and will you be satisfied with that is the question....

A 2.8 lens is not all about the light. They are more expensive for sure but the image quality is usually a lot better than a slower consumer zoom with the same coverage.

effron wrote: I owned a 18-200 and have a 200 f/4...NO comparison, the prime killed it. I own a 70-300 and a 300 f/4...NO comparison, the prime kills it. How much will you use the 70-200 at the long end, and will you be satisfied with that is the question....

A better comparison would have used the 70-200 2.8 and the 80-400 VR. Cheap consumer zooms don't stand a chance while top notch pro level zooms put up a good fight.

effron wrote: I owned a 18-200 and have a 200 f/4...NO comparison, the prime killed it. I own a 70-300 and a 300 f/4...NO comparison, the prime kills it. How much will you use the 70-200 at the long end, and will you be satisfied with that is the question....

that is what it boils down to.  Primes will take the prize, however at a much higher expense and, one focal length only.   Do you do much bird photography?  

Who decide's what quality is? Quality is a subject that it seem's a bunch of photographer's will never get enough of, how much is enough?

The Gardener wrote:

effron wrote: I owned a 18-200 and have a 200 f/4...NO comparison, the prime killed it. I own a 70-300 and a 300 f/4...NO comparison, the prime kills it. How much will you use the 70-200 at the long end, and will you be satisfied with that is the question....

that is what it boils down to.  Primes will take the prize, however at a much higher expense and, one focal length only.   Do you do much bird photography?  

There are times its all I do. Always with my 300 f/4 and as close as I can get...(Ten feet would be perfect)

200mm f/2.8 would be nice to have!

The Nikon 200 f/2 is a classic, that's the one I'd like....

Depends on what you are using the lens for and what your current lens inventory happens to be. In my opinion, the prime will always give you a better result overall. But if you're lacking lenses, the zoom lens is much more versatile and might be a better choice in the long run.

Hmmmm prime