200mm f/1.8 L discussion

[baybud]

I know this is cheeky and i must apologise for my cheek, but i have checked the samples thread and found that the 200 1.8 sample section is lacking. I'm considerin purchasing the 1.8 f i can sell the 85L +70-200 IS " as they do not fully help with the photography i am interested in"

I would be forever in debpt to anyone who could post some samples of the 1.8, hopefully crops too if possible.

Again sorry my outrageous cheek.

[BradT0517]

Yea I think I have only heard of this once. It was some thing where a astrophotographer or something like that had 8 of them set up and there was a post like a few days ago about it.

Where did you find one for sale.

[baybud]

well at the moment i have no seller, however there is a korean seller who has sold a number of them in the past year or so. I'm just waiting to sell those lenses, add a bit more money to it and wait untill there is a 1.8 i want , hopefulyl a nice condition, circa 2000 ish.
Realistically i don't except to be able to purchase before feb 2007, but its a goal i'm working towards.
Basically i want it so it can compliment my 300 when the light goes, or when i need less FL, i admit thats its reputation has seduced me lol. Damn it's a sexy piece of glass in both optics and physical apperance :D

[MDJAK]

Here's one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-EOS-200mm-200-F1-8-L-Telephoto-Lens_W0QQitemZ140037392643QQihZ004QQcategoryZ10684 4QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Here's another from a regular seller of this lens.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-200-200mm-1-8-F1-8-L-EF-USM-Lens-S-N-14216_W0QQitemZ230035477212QQihZ013QQcategoryZ4687 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[baybud]

THANKYOU! damn thats a nice one, i just wish i were in a position to get it now LOL

Thanks though! :D

[BradT0517]

So cool and I could use my XTi as a lens cap

[baybud]

lol, have you seen the 1700 zeiss? That poor wee hassleblad pretty much fills that role.

[photolife]

The Chamcamera lens will go for $3,900....mark my word.
There is almost no point in bidding on it....either buy it now or leave it.

[calicokat]

So tempting, I am still holding out hope for an updated version from Canon next year with IS

[MDJAK]

Just curious. Maximum aperture aside, which lens would you prefer, the 300 f2.8 or the 200 f1.8?

Which is faster focusing? Which has better optics? Which has better IQ?

mark

[calicokat]

those are fabulous photos, wow

[inthedeck]

Yeah, just a preview of what the 200mm f1.8L can do, given the right hands to work it...hehe. Impressive, I must say.

[photolife]

Just curious. Maximum aperture aside, which lens would you prefer, the 300 f2.8 or the 200 f1.8?

Which is faster focusing? Which has better optics? Which has better IQ?

mark

One has to have both in order to compare.
However, what I do know is that:
(1) 300 f/2.8 has I/S.
(2) 300 f/2.8 is about 1lb lighter.
(3) 300 f/2.8 is fully supported by Canon
(4) 300 f/2.8 AF on MkIIN is so fast that I can not imagine anything being faster.
(5) 300 mm is generally a more useful FL than 200mm.

The 200 f/1.8 is clearly faster and probably sharper.

[cjm]

Its probably an awesome lens but its probably also over priced also. Would rather get a modern 300 f2.8 IS L if I was to spend that kind of money. Especially since it probably focuses quicker. JMO

[JK]

One has to have both in order to compare.Sounds like we need an official POTN 200mm f1.8 vs 300mm f2.8 challenge! :D

Ok, so who's got these lenses and who's willing to put them up for a bit of a pixel-peeping test? We could devise certain lens tests that people could perform no matter where they are. And then just post the results in this thread. Anyone interested in doing this? :D

[mspringfield]

I do not have both but with the 200 1.8 the 300 has no appeal to me with or without IS

Things to remember"
1) The 200 1.8 is 1 1/3 stops faster and when you are shooting in low light that is a world of difference. Remember that IS is not the holy grail that many people think it is especially when your goal is stopping the action.
2) Weight is not really an issue if you use a monopod and 1 lb is nothing.
3) The 200 may not be still supported by Canon but there are many 3rd party repair centers that will work on it. Plus if it doesn't break does it really matter?
4) The 200 1.8 is the fastest focusing Canon lens I have every used. A 1.4x or 2x TC barely effects its focus speed or IQ.
5) 300 is not necessarily a more useful focal length if you are shooting indoor low light conditions. Plus add a 1.4x TC to the 200 and you have a 280 2.5. Extremely close to the 300's FL and still 1/3 stop faster. A 2x give you a 400 3.5. More reach and 2/3 stop slower.
6) Of the 2 lenses only 1 of them has the "legendary" status.

On the down side the 200 1.8 is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced photographer. The focus is so fast and the DOF is so shallow that it takes a lot of practice to learn to use it. I have had access to one for almost 5 years. I hated it the first few times I used one, after more use I became somewhat indifferent to it. About a year ago I found a good deal on one and now if I was told that I can only have 1 lens for the rest of my life the 200 1.8 would be it, especially if I could have TCs to go with it. The 200 1.8 is a money lens. It will get the shot when nothing else will.

Michael

[foxbat]

I think busterboy has both. Let's see if he notices this thread.

[baybud]

Sounds like we need an official POTN 200mm f1.8 vs 300mm f2.8 challenge! :D

Ok, so who's got these lenses and who's willing to put them up for a bit of a pixel-peeping test? We could devise certain lens tests that people could perform no matter where they are. And then just post the results in this thread. Anyone interested in doing this? :D

we would also need to assure its the same model that tests both lenses, better still if the very same camera was used otherwise the data will be good as useless.

[kez]

I know this is cheeky and i must apologise for my cheek, but i have checked the samples thread and found that the 200 1.8 sample section is lacking. I'm considerin purchasing the 1.8 f i can sell the 85L +70-200 IS " as they do not fully help with the photography i am interested in"

I would be forever in debpt to anyone who could post some samples of the 1.8, hopefully crops too if possible.

Again sorry my outrageous cheek.

as for being cheeky, how much for the 85L?

i have a 200 2.8L w/ tripod collar, if that's of any interest ;)

[photolife]

Photodo gives the 200 f/1.8 grade 4.8.
I can not see the 300 f/2.8 listed however, the 300 f/4 non-IS got grade 4.3.
The Photozone 300 f/2.8 MTF results while very good are nothing exceptional.
They did not test the 200 f/1.8.

I suppose one should take all of this with a grain of salt. Lens testers and their methods are different, so are lens copies they get to evaluate.

Both lenses are similarly priced (one brand new, the other in a like-new condition): very expensive !

However, the lenses are very different which in my mind diminishes the value of "which one is sharper" comparison.
However, what I would really like to see is the 200 mm shootout between the f/1.8 and f/2.8 primes. Now, that would make an exciting forum subject !:D

[jwkramer]

I do not have both but with the 200 1.8 the 300 has no appeal to me with or without IS

Things to remember"
1) The 200 1.8 is 1 1/3 stops faster and when you are shooting in low light that is a world of difference. Remember that IS is not the holy grail that many people think it is especially when your goal is stopping the action.
2) Weight is not really an issue if you use a monopod and 1 lb is nothing.
3) The 200 may not be still supported by Canon but there are many 3rd party repair centers that will work on it. Plus if it doesn't break does it really matter?
4) The 200 1.8 is the fastest focusing Canon lens I have every used. A 1.4x or 2x TC barely effects its focus speed or IQ.
5) 300 is not necessarily a more useful focal length if you are shooting indoor low light conditions. Plus add a 1.4x TC to the 200 and you have a 280 2.5. Extremely close to the 300's FL and still 1/3 stop faster. A 2x give you a 400 3.5. More reach and 2/3 stop slower.
6) Of the 2 lenses only 1 of them has the "legendary" status.

On the down side the 200 1.8 is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced photographer. The focus is so fast and the DOF is so shallow that it takes a lot of practice to learn to use it. I have had access to one for almost 5 years. I hated it the first few times I used one, after more use I became somewhat indifferent to it. About a year ago I found a good deal on one and now if I was told that I can only have 1 lens for the rest of my life the 200 1.8 would be it, especially if I could have TCs to go with it. The 200 1.8 is a money lens. It will get the shot when nothing else will.

Michael

There's a testament for you!

Hey Michael, why the 300/4L in your arsenal? (just curious)...

[baybud]

has this thread name been changed? or am i going mad?

[photolife]

has this thread name been changed? or am i going mad?

I do not remember if it had "discussion" or "samples" in the title.....well, you've started it.;)
Frankly, I have seen more samples than it's been good for me.
The only 'samples" that matter to me are those that I'd be able to get with the lens mounted on my camera.:D

[baybud]

m, it was samples, just because no one has contributed samples i think its outrageous its been changed. grrrr.

[jwkramer]

if I had this lens, I would post some shots from it. Since I don't... why don't you try here:
http://www.photosig.com and look at photos by LENS, then scroll the list to the 200/1.8 I am sure there should be some good examples. there.

-Jim

[jwkramer]

see what I mean:
http://www.jim-kramer.com/images/200-1_8.jpg

[nickbeechey]

I bought this lense recently, although have yet to take any real photos with it, just looking at it is enough for me :o !!(no, I've been really busy, moving house).

One thing to note for UK buyers add 25% on the price you pay to get it through customs.

From the little play I've had I'm very impressed though.

Cheers
Nick

[baybud]

if I had this lens, I would post some shots from it. Since I don't... why don't you try here:
http://www.photosig.com and look at photos by LENS, then scroll the list to the 200/1.8 I am sure there should be some good examples. there.

-Jim

lol thanks for that :) when i have a spare month i'll look through that list lol

[inthedeck]

yeah, I had posted three pictures from Photosig, but I guess that the mod's deleted it. It's fine, but at least you know Photosig is a place you can find pictures based on ANYTHING. Gotta love it.

[baybud]

see what I mean:
http://www.jim-kramer.com/images/200-1_8.jpg

lol thanks i shall seek it now ! :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Sorry folks, I was called away from my desk at work just after taking the action here, so was unable to explain it. PM sent to Baybud.

inthedeck, your post was deleted as you had embeded sample images that you do not hold the copyright to.
Please review the forums rules found here;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/rules.php

There is a currently running 200mm f1.8L sample image thread that we would love to see more contributions to that can be found here;
EF 200mm f/1.8L Sample Images (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=143434) <<--- link

Taking into account the effort that these archive/image-threads took to organize, and the benifit for all to find them catagorized, at we'd much prefer to see the existing threads added to, rather than a new one started. Starting a new thread for samples means that when people want to find such images in the future they are faced with the saem confusion that you are pointing out re: the Photosig catagories..
In fact to help avoid this confusion our S.O.P. would be to simply merge the new thread with the existing one anyways. (something that Photosig could seriously think about doing :lol: )
This thread was not merged as it contained no images (save for those that were in violation of the forums rules and copyright issues) though the posts with links may be merged with the "archive" thread.

[jwkramer]

a few more...
http://www.jim-kramer.com/images/200-1_8a.jpg

[KevC]

Here are some from pbase (if not already posted, i apologize)

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_200_18u

[photolife]

I do not have both but with the 200 1.8 the 300 has no appeal to me with or without IS

Things to remember"
1) The 200 1.8 is 1 1/3 stops faster and when you are shooting in low light that is a world of difference. Remember that IS is not the holy grail that many people think it is especially when your goal is stopping the action.


The IS is what it is....eminently useful for hand or monopod supported setup. If shooting conditions require sufficiently deep DoF (say at f/3.5), then lens speed does not help you any......IS (and pods) do. And ISO does.....if you need to stay at f/3.5 (as an example) and need to raise shutter speed so you can stop action.

Particularly for lenses 200mm and longer, lens speed combined with IS is the Canon's state of the art way of ensuring the ultimate lens performance. And I must tell you, I like that.

[busterboy]

I think busterboy has both. Let's see if he notices this thread.

It would be a good man who could tell the difference in IQ between these two lenses. The 200mm f/1.8L is just lightning fast AF with contrast and colours that no other lens can get near. ;)

The 300mm f.2.8L IS also has a pedigree that needs no introduction, The results from this amazing lens tells the story. Also both these lenses out perform any other lens even with the converter fitter.. 1.4X or 2X

http://www.timprocter.co.uk/photography/Canon~lenses/Canons-Finest.jpg

[photolife]

It would be a good man who could tell the difference in IQ between these two lenses.

Are we to understand that you have indeed done the comparison and could not tell a difference in IQ ?
Frankly, a photo of amasssed boxes as well as the two lenses in question does not illustrate the comparison all too well.;)

[jwkramer]

Man, I want that collection of stuff!

[busterboy]

Are we to understand that you have indeed done the comparison and could not tell a difference in IQ ?




From my untrained eye as an amateur I can only pass on my findings from my results.;)

I am no expert but can post in this thread expressing my own opinion as you can too..:rolleyes:

Sorry if the above shot of the lenses offends you..:p

[jwkramer]

I looked up offend in the dictionary, and I can't seem to find drooling anywhere in the definition... <GRIN>

[photolife]

Is this some kind of an in-joke I am missing here ? When we are talking Image Quality (IQ) comparison beween two lenses, are we to look at the images of the lenses themselves or images taken with the lenses ? :lol: :lol:

[inthedeck]

CBS -- was late at night...so rather than posting the 'links' to the actual shots, I guess I embedded them. I will be more careful, when doing as such. NO harm done...and I am a wiser lad.

Cheers.
i.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Is this some kind of an in-joke I am missing here ? When we are talking Image Quality (IQ) comparison beween two lenses, are we to look at the images of the lenses themselves or images taken with the lenses ? :lol: :lol:

Of course, ! didn't you know that? :lol:


CBS -- was late at night...so rather than posting the 'links' to the actual shots, I guess I embedded them. I will be more careful, when doing as such. NO harm done...and I am a wiser lad.

Cheers.
i.
Yes,. no harm done! :)

[mspringfield]

There's a testament for you!

Hey Michael, why the 300/4L in your arsenal? (just curious)...

Jim,

I picked up the 300/4 IS used for $900.00 before I found the 200 1.8. Mine is a super sharp copy and works great with a 1.4x TC. I have thought about selling it a couple of times but decided to hang on to it for hiking/birding when I want to travel light. Especially considering the deal that I got. Of course I don't remember the last time it was on my camera.

Michael

[mspringfield]

The IS is what it is....eminently useful for hand or monopod supported setup. If shooting conditions require sufficiently deep DoF (say at f/3.5), then lens speed does not help you any......IS (and pods) do. And ISO does.....if you need to stay at f/3.5 (as an example) and need to raise shutter speed so you can stop action.

Particularly for lenses 200mm and longer, lens speed combined with IS is the Canon's state of the art way of ensuring the ultimate lens performance. And I must tell you, I like that.

Not if you shoot indoor/outdoor sporting events like I do where I need to keep the DOF shallow and the shutter speed above 1/320. Since I shoot in locations where light is a problem I need to shoot wide open. In cases like this IS is useless. Also why would you take a 200 1.8 lens and back it down to 3.5? If you are going to shoot 3.5 there are lots of other lenses that you can use.

Try this test. Take 2 1 series cameras, mount a 70-200 2.8 IS on one and a 200 1.8 on the other. Then go shoot a gymnastics competition in a gym with lighting so horrible that you have no choice but shoot at ISO 1600. Which camera/lens combo do you think will get the shots? There is only one and trust me it isn't the one with the IS. Check my sig. I have both a 70-200 IS and the 200 1.8. When my paycheck is riding on the shots I take the IS lens is staying in the bag when the 200 1.8 is the one that shows me the money.

I am not saying that IS doesn't have its place but too many people think if it as some kind of magic that will make them this awesome photographer and it just isn't the case. Under a great many conditions there is just no substitute for aperture.

As far as samples from this lens. From a marching band competition.

http://www.pbase.com/mspringfield/image/68045362.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/mspringfield/image/68045358.jpg

[Bamamike]

Just have it and enjoy it....

[Lord_Malone]

http://www.pbase.com/mspringfield/image/68045362.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/mspringfield/image/68045358.jpg

These shots could use some USM.

[Buttkicker]

Hi Folks
I think I am pretty much qualified to add my 2p in this discussion, as I have the 200mm F1.8, and I my brother has the 300mm F2.8IS
and as such we share them pretty much, and have used his 300mm a lot

Both are in the 'stellar' catagory and with an unaided eye I doubt any one could tell the difference in outright P/Q

I think the Bokeh on the 200mm out shines the 300mm (and everything else) bar the the 85mm f1.2 - which i would rate as the same (creamy)

as for Low light or indoor sports shooting the 200mm leaves the 300mm trailing in its 'wake' no question about that, getting shots that an F2.8 Lens just cannot get

Autofocus speed on Both is lightning fast, in fact I believe that both Lenses are at the very top of the foodchain in that department although in my opinion the 200mm just has the edge (Just)

A lot of rubbish is spoken about loss of quality using the converters - well on both of these lenses, the quality loss using the 1.4x on both lenses is not visible to my eye at all, and I have a bunch of folders full of A3 prints that are 'astounding quality' see-ing the pictures on a PC screen just does not do the lenses justice, on A3 prints the results are spectacular
and the speed of autofocus is not slowed down at all on either of the lenses, maybe a fraction on the 300mm

moving onto the 2x converter, on both lenses they still work well (really well) again autofocus on both lenses is still remarkably fast, with the picture a little softer... but 'both lenses' out resolve the 100-400mm zoom which is a much talked about lens, and also the autofocus speed is 'light years' in front of the 100-400 even when using the 2x converter

people also make a big deal of 'IS' - which is a non issue for me as 90% of the time I switch it off as it eats the battery, but I guess thats just the way I work

as to every day use I actually prefer the 300mm which is a bigger beast than the 200mm - but I must say the 200 is an awful Lens to hand hold, its a dead weight and is an awkward thing to handle
so I use it on my monopod most of the time, whereas the 300mm is much better balanced for hand holding, and very rarely use a monopod with it

Both Lenses bring a smile to my face when I see the end results on returning home from a days shooting, they just jump off the screen at you, owners of both the Lenses will know exactly what I mean, about the 'jumping off the screen'
cant really add anything else to this post, and must add that having read (ALL)this thread, the really good posts are from the poeple who actually 'OWN' or have regulary used both the lenses mentioned
apologies for such a long post, not usually my style LOL
regards Chris

[Andy_T]

I think one important part of the question you have to answer yourself ... do you need 200 mm or 300 mm focal length?

Without having used either of those, the 200 is capable of giving you 280 mm with the 1.4x converter, but if you want something like 400 mm, the 300+1.4x will most likely give better results than the 200+2.0x.

Best regards,
Andy

[busterboy]

I think one important part of the question you have to answer yourself ... do you need 200 mm or 300 mm focal length?

Without having used either of those, the 200 is capable of giving you 280 mm with the 1.4x converter, but if you want something like 400 mm, the 300+1.4x will most likely give better results than the 200+2.0x.

Best regards,
Andy


Good post Andy..:)

Lots of options but either one of these superb lenses will out perform any lens on the market today..;)

[Zilly]

http://www.timprocter.co.uk/photography/Canon%7Elenses/Canons-Finest.jpg

I think im going to cry that is IMHO the perfect set up im very gellous :p