Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

[Nick_b]

nostalg1a, that's a sweet photo!

Out of interest, does anyone have a photo of the actual lens with lens hood mounted on a body?

Here is a quick snap shot for ya!

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/_MG_7457.jpg

[leitch]

Thank you! I searched for ages and couldn't find a photo, that's exactly what I was looking for. Looks just like my 135L except a tad longer - perfect!

[Nick_b]

Thank you! I searched for ages and couldn't find a photo, that's exactly what I was looking for. Looks just like my 135L except a tad longer - perfect!

no problem! I've seen pictures of the 135 and 200 next to each other and they do look exactly the same only the 200 is a bit longer.... like you said. :)

[Rafromak]

Cloudy day. Added a 12mm kenko tube to close the distance.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Fireweed.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Rosehip.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Lily08-03-08.jpg

[Nick_b]

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6609.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6628.jpg

[tmonatr]

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6609.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6628.jpg
Dude!

[Nick_b]

Dude indeed! lol

So my first chance using the 200mm for a motor sport.... damn is the AF fast! I was unimpressed with it's low light focusing compared to my other two lenses but where this lens shines is in AF servo.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6868.jpg'

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_7153.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6864.jpg

[dzine808]

do they make tripod mounts, like the 70-200IS, for this lens?

[TheHoff]

Canon Tripod Mount Ring A-2

(black version to match or the white works as well)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/478436-REG/Canon_1695B001_Tripod_Mount_Ring_A_2.html

[Nick_b]

You can find really cheap rip offs on ebay too. 150 bucks is kinda steep.

[versedmb]

Dude indeed! lol


http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6864.jpg


Maybe I should consider shooting some motocross - love this one Nick. ;)

[aero.nz]

In terms of focusing speed, how does the prime compare with the 70-200 2.8 NON IS or 4 with IS?

[sol95]

i was thinking about opting for the 70-200 f2.8L IS, even though I already have the f4 IS. But now I'll just get this and save me enough a significant whack of money!

so...what lens to get with the savings? :P

[TheHoff]

i was thinking about opting for the 70-200 f2.8L IS, even though I already have the f4 IS. But now I'll just get this and save me enough a significant whack of money!

so...what lens to get with the savings? :P

Save a bit more and get the 24L.


>>In terms of focusing speed,

I can't compare for you but the 200 prime is quick, sure of itself, and a relatively new design; since it has less glass than the zooms, I'd say it should be as quick or better.

[Cl!ckFoto]

big brown truck brought mine today! straight out of camera, no pp just messing around

1.)
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s243/97TurboDSM/IMG_1044.jpg

2.)
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s243/97TurboDSM/IMG_1040.jpg

[Stealthy Ninja]

Save a bit more and get the 24L.


>>In terms of focusing speed,

I can't compare for you but the 200 prime is quick, sure of itself, and a relatively new design; since it has less glass than the zooms, I'd say it should be as quick or better.

24L pimping again Hoff.

:p

[ArthurH]

My favourite lens!

[ArthurH]

Two more.

[Sfordphoto]

My favourite lens!

Nice pics Arthur, but if you don't mind me saying so, they look like they are a bit flat.

[ArthurH]

Flat? That's because I live in the Netherlands...
No seriously, do you mean lack of contrast and colour? I think you're right, although the pics have been taken in dark area's.
BTW which brings me to the only problem I have with this lens, pictures taken in sunlight are more colourful, but tend to have harsh shadows (if you take a picture of an animal in sunlight, half of it gets much darker than in real-life) . Anyone with the same experience and/or with advice? Thanks!

PS my first Flickr-posts (signed up yesterday), mostly with this lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30315506@N08/

[ArthurH]

Two more (sorry, can't sleep).
Still learning, so any advice is helpful! Got both my L-lenses just recently.
To people considering to buy this lens: it's sharp, it's got very nice bokeh, it's easy to handle (grip & weight are nice) and it's fun!

[Stealthy Ninja]

Nice pics Arthur, but if you don't mind me saying so, they look like they are a bit flat.

That happens when things are 2D dude. ;)

[Sfordphoto]

Flat? That's because I live in the Netherlands...
No seriously, do you mean lack of contrast and colour? I think you're right, although the pics have been taken in dark area's.
BTW which brings me to the only problem I have with this lens, pictures taken in sunlight are more colourful, but tend to have harsh shadows (if you take a picture of an animal in sunlight, half of it gets much darker than in real-life) . Anyone with the same experience and/or with advice? Thanks!

PS my first Flickr-posts (signed up yesterday), mostly with this lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30315506@N08/

i meant lack of contrast, you could easily fix that with some curves use. since i learned how to do curves, i think i've become a bit too critical when i see flat images, so please excuse me :D


hope you don't mind that i edited your work; i saw image editing OK in your profile

before
http://lh5.ggpht.com/chiewjen/SMSSDVtrWUI/AAAAAAAACHI/fr2DHeo2Od4/1096.jpg

after quick levels and curves work:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/chiewjen/SMSSDh2xngI/AAAAAAAACHQ/cfeoA-j0EM8/1096after.jpg


That happens when things are 2D dude. ;)

lol, i knew people would make bad jokes :D. and by bad i mean good

[Naturalist]

EF 200 is a great little telephoto

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/3587347725_0f4cc8cc3d_o.jpg

[Boucher]

Nice capture there Doug, is that from the effect of hurricane Gustav?

[Stealthy Ninja]

Nice capture there Doug, is that from the effect of hurricane Gustav?

No just 1000000s of fish I think. ;)

Or all those guys casting in at the same time.


lol, i knew people would make bad jokes :D. and by bad i mean good

With me, good = awesome, so by bad you mean awesome... right?!

???

Also, I can't see the photos you put on unless I right click and open in new tab.

[Sfordphoto]

With me, good = awesome, so by bad you mean awesome... right?!

???

Also, I can't see the photos you put on unless I right click and open in new tab.

Wait really? you can't see my pics? Anyone else having this problem? HORRORS!

I guess my pics are too stealthy for you.

For me, awesome usually means bad, so putting us together, I think bad=bad. Proof complete :D

[Stealthy Ninja]

Wait really? you can't see my pics? Anyone else having this problem? HORRORS!

I guess my pics are too stealthy for you.

For me, awesome usually means bad, so putting us together, I think bad=bad. Proof complete :D


But bad = wicked and wicked = good. So bad = awesome... ???

[Sfordphoto]

i dunno you're losing me :D

are the pics still not working for you? what browser are you using? its working for me in chrome

[Stealthy Ninja]

i dunno you're losing me :D

are the pics still not working for you? what browser are you using? its working for me in chrome

Works now. No problem. You did a good job there. They're bad! ;)

I'm using Safari (on a mac).

[Sfordphoto]

bad to the bone.

No wonder it didn't work initially...Mac...tsk tsk

Just kidding

I edited the other ones, so you could get more of an idea...dang now I see why JPEG sucks when pushed lol

http://lh4.ggpht.com/chiewjen/SMSp5GFjp_I/AAAAAAAACHY/eHtwvabVXNs/3471c.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/chiewjen/SMSp5Iayx7I/AAAAAAAACHg/licnl8zF6PI/2339c.jpg

[Stealthy Ninja]

Now, now, don't start that thing again.. This thread is long enough. LOL.

I used this lens again yesterday. I was able to film the subject talking (a retirement dinner) then move to the side to photograph them talking, all while not staying too far from my XL2.

Awesome dudes (used a flash too. Just to keep the light up there).

[ArthurH]

Thanks Sfordphoto I guess I should use RAW more often.

[pxl8]

Got mine yesterday for when I need a bit more reach than the 135L. Loving it already :)

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/web_9345.jpg

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/web_9411.jpg

[smashing.poot]

Got mine yesterday for when I need a bit more reach than the 135L. Loving it already :)

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/web_9345.jpg



holy freakin hell. Thats razor sharp.

[Stealthy Ninja]

holy freakin hell. Thats razor sharp.

You're telling me!

This shows what this lens can do I think. The 1D really brings it out.

:D :D

[pxl8]

Yep, it's mighty sharp. Also works well for macro if you bolt a tube or two on...

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/web_9491.jpg

This was at f/5.6, looks great as a desktop background - it's a BIG spider then :lol:

[TheHoff]

Great angle and backlight! ^^^

[Eyies]

Wow what a nice lens!.. Wonder if I could live without flexibility of a zoom.. But damn what a nice price for beautiful lens :D

[GMCPhotographics]

Yep, it's mighty sharp. Also works well for macro if you bolt a tube or two on...

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/web_9491.jpg

This was at f/5.6, looks great as a desktop background - it's a BIG spider then :lol:

That's the first shot here that's really impressed me. Sorry but most of the shots here just haven't lit my fire. But this image is sensational.

This is a lens that I'm very interested in, purley because the zoom version is so big and heavy. I have a sigma 70-200/2.8 which I am very happy with, but I mostly use it wide open and maxxed out...so i might as well get a prime. The bag weight will be less and this lens is less conspicuous.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Yep, it's mighty sharp. Also works well for macro if you bolt a tube or two on...

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/web_9491.jpg

This was at f/5.6, looks great as a desktop background - it's a BIG spider then :lol:

Try taking that one with your 24L Hoff. :p

;)

Nice, nice, nice photo. :D

[Cl!ckFoto]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2901054100_f7a3a7d20a_b.jpg

[GMCPhotographics]

stupid flikr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8480956@N02/2901054100/

If you select all sizes on your flickr page, then cut and paste the right box
and dop it into the insert image button on this forum, you get an embedded image.

[Cl!ckFoto]

ah cool, thanks.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Cl!ckFoto, your photo is here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2901054100_f7a3a7d20a_b.jpg

You can edit your post above and stick it in. :D

[Cl!ckFoto]

ha thanks, post edited. me=flickr novice

[Perry Ge]

Echinacea, 200L + extension tubes:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/2897395894_14266727c3.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/perryge/2897395894/)

[Lester Wareham]

That's really nice Perry.

It's a great lens for flowers in terms of perspective isolation, add a tube if you need to get a little close. Here is another:

http://www.ware.myzen.co.uk/GalleryPics/Photos/Flora/Flora%205/Flora%20Fritillary%20A%20006%20120408.jpg

[Perry Ge]

Thanks Lester!

[Redlineracer12]

Just got mine Saturday :cool:

http://www.shineyphotos.com/images4/IMG_8651copy.jpg

[tepic]

So sharp even at f/2.8.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2987887305_0bd8403b5d_o.jpg

[Helena]

What an amazing lens this is! I got mine a few days ago, and have only taken a few "test shots" (around the Nidaros Dome here in Trondheim, Norway) with it, but love it already. It's nearly, or maybe even just as, good as the 135L.

The test shots turned out OK, so I post some of them here just to keep this thread alive. :) All taken with 5D. #1, 3 and 5 are at f/4, and #2 and 4 are at f/2.8.


#1:

http://www.graphicgarden.com/keep/2008/20081029_001_5db.jpg


#2:

http://www.graphicgarden.com/keep/2008/20081029_009_5db.jpg


#3:

http://www.graphicgarden.com/keep/2008/20081029_003_5db.jpg


#4:

http://www.graphicgarden.com/keep/2008/20081029_010_5db.jpg


#5:

http://www.graphicgarden.com/keep/2008/20081029_004_5db.jpg

[tepic]

Looks great. I love the saturation that comes from this lens and the 5D.

[Helena]

Thank you! Yes, it's great on 5D. Sadly, I will probably use it more on the 450D though (for extra reach). It's fine on that camera too, but 5D is special.

[Jannie]

200 @ 2.8 1/13th ISO 800

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb200/palousegirl/200281-13thISO800-.jpg

[Lemmonphotography]

i just bought this lens like an hour ago, i am sooo excited. what a good feeling!

[fefo.1979]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3215/3005813674_56785918d3_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/3005813682_2c223a321b_o.jpg

[speedy_2]

Well I think I've figured out the next long lens I want. lol.

[Cl!ckFoto]

i want my 200 f2.8 back, if only i could get rid of my 70-200 f2.8. keep up the good work everyone

[Stealthy Ninja]

This is truely a great lens (overlooked in so many ways).

I am considering getting a 70-200 2.8L IS though. To use indoors with event shoots and the flexibility of that lens (plus IS) helps in those situations. However, for street photography or occasions where FL flexiblity isn't needed. This lens is a constant favourite.

Here's a rare Stealthy Ninja NON-candid. :shock:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/3010215205_e13f482952_b.jpg

[Cl!ckFoto]

ha that guy's beard is AWESOME.

[Stealthy Ninja]

ha that guy's beard is AWESOME.

Thanks, this lens is good at getting photos like that. Makes you remember why primes are so darn nice (and why we keep spending money of a "cheap" lens that doesn't even zoom).

At least MY Canon ixus 65 has ZOOM! :p

[ArthurH]

Zooms are just for lazy people...:)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Zooms are just for lazy people...:)

YEAH! You lazy slobs. If you're in a crowd and can't get the shot, just step on peoples heads... lazy guys, with their non-ninja-like-abilities.
:lol:

[Jannie]

This is a crop from the 200 2.8 with a 2x tele extender, I had to do quite a bit of PP in Lightroom to get the crab pot and line a bit darker but I like it anyway. Lots of fog with tons of backlight.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb200/palousegirl/Crabpot.jpg

[GMCPhotographics]

Has anyone got a photo of this lens with the optional tripod collar fitted?

[Redlineracer12]

http://www.shineyphotos.com/como/IMG_9206copy.jpg

[Stealthy Ninja]

Has anyone got a photo of this lens with the optional tripod collar fitted?

I think it's not heavy enough to warrant it IMHO.

So most people don't bother getting one. Still, I'd like to see what it looks like too. :)

[Redlineracer12]

I think it's not heavy enough to warrant it IMHO.

So most people don't bother getting one. Still, I'd like to see what it looks like too. :)

It looks good in black :cool: I should have taken a picture while I was using a friend's ring. I ordered my own that should be here sometime this week (I have a cheap tripod so it doesn't care for the 200 hanging off the gripped XTi). I did not see the need to spend $150 for a Canon so I got a ring from Roxxen on Evil-bay... Wish the Roxxen ones were made in black though (ordered from them because of good reviews here).

[TheHoff]

Pardon my crappy product photography. I leave it on all the time; it makes a convenient palm rest for manual focusing even if handheld.


http://i34.tinypic.com/111qmjc.jpg


http://i34.tinypic.com/otp577.jpg


http://i36.tinypic.com/2eqf1qa.jpg

[TheHoff]

Recent one from a friend's wedding; shooting from the choir balcony, handheld and resting on the ledge...

1/40 sec @ f/2.8, ISO 400

http://i34.tinypic.com/4jq5x2.jpg


A different wedding.... :)


http://i34.tinypic.com/6z6gqu.jpg



And one of my son...

http://i36.tinypic.com/27ybk43.jpg

[TheHoff]

Wedding film....

EOS-1N
200/2.8
Ilford HP5 => web-res scans


http://i33.tinypic.com/2gw8fmh.jpg



http://i38.tinypic.com/16gk01d.jpg



http://i34.tinypic.com/20hvst5.jpg

[Jannie]

I want one of those rings, it will help greatly when I use extension tubes, but I havn't seen one anywhere! I must be looking wrong, can someone offer a link?

[Redlineracer12]

You can get a knock off version on Ebay, but here's the more expensive Canon version: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/478436-REG/Canon_1695B001_Tripod_Mount_Ring_A_2.html

[Jannie]

Okay, I'd seen the one for the 70-200 f4 zoom but they didn't list a cross reference that it can be used on the 200L 2.8. Thanks. I guess considering the money, if I get a 25mm extension tube to go with my 2 12 mm tubes and this mount I'm looking at almost $300 by the time I pay tax and shipping, maybe that money would be better spent toward either a 180mm Macro (which I've used and they are awsome) or the 100mm macro, gotta think about this.

[TheHoff]

My mounting collar was from the Buy and Sell for about 30% off new.

[john-in-japan]

My Contribution:
Clear day. Remarkable clarity.
John

[TheHoff]

Hi John, that is a lovely shot. However it is very high contrast and I don't think it is taking well to the sharpening applied. I'd suggest trying a few different methods and possibly putting a layer over the original and masking out some areas that don't need as much.

[john-in-japan]

Hi Hoff - Straight out of the camera. No adjustments except horizon straightened.
I'll try to tone it down. Maybe B&W better?
John

[john-in-japan]

Better?

[dshankar]

all wide open..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2556323380_b68f4eb64f_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/2556322720_ce75692f96_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2555476739_832898a700_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/2555477553_dac647229f_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2556306522_c8ab8e0f8a_b.jpg

How does he achieve such nice background separation with a 200mm f/2.8L!? Is it because he uses a 5D full frame? My 40D crop body doesn't seem to get such background separation.....

Does anyone know how he achieves that cinematic shade? What kind of post processing is that!?

[BlueTsunami]

How does he achieve such nice background separation with a 200mm f/2.8L!? Is it because he uses a 5D full frame? My 40D crop body doesn't seem to get such background separation.....

Does anyone know how he achieves that cinematic shade? What kind of post processing is that!?

Not sure if you can only achieve that type of separation with only a Full Frame camera but are you sure stepping back and shooting wide open won't produce similar shots?

The Post Processing is definitely nice. It looks to have a cooler filter applied to it and a contrast bump.

[KayakPhotos]

I am considering this lens to use with a 40D for street candids. I am wondering if it is a little bit long for this purpose though. I don't really want to spend the extra dough on the 135L, so I thought that I might go with the 100 f/2 since I am using the crop sensor. Any thoughts?

[Helena]

If you want candid head shots I think it could work. I usually want to include more than just heads though, and even 135L is too long for me on my 1.6 crop 450D. On 5D it's just perfect though, which is what I prefer to use (combined with a shorter lens), so I think 85/1.8 or 100/2 would be great for a crop camera.

[KayakPhotos]

Exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for the input! Now I just have to choose between those two lenses....:confused:

[blackwize]

Shot wide open on a 5d. no post processing except resizing to post

[TheHoff]

Shot wide open on a 5d. no post processing except resizing to post

Hello Nana K (from flickr friend, HassleTheHoff)... wonderful portrait here, thanks for sharing.

[KayakPhotos]

Shot wide open on a 5d. no post processing except resizing to post

Very well done. This must be one killer lens/camera combo. Keep up the good work.

[Jannie]

The 200 2.8L is another amazingly easy lens to work with like the 135 2L, something about them separates the subject so quickly to my eye and just jumps onto the frame.

[Stealthy Ninja]

The 200 2.8L is another amazingly easy lens to work with like the 135 2L, something about them separates the subject so quickly to my eye and just jumps onto the frame.

Mmm, I wonder how to 135/200mm combo is on a FF?

Do you find them a little close to each other, or is it worth having both?

[ArthurH]

Edvard Munch using the 200L...
(sorry sometimes you have those bad pictures you just can't delete :))

[ArthurH]

Good question by Stealthy Ninja: is it useful to have both these lenses (135L + 200L)? I'm curious about the answer too.

[tom s]

I'm thinking of getting 200 f/2.8L (I already have 135 f/2L) to use it with 1.4 extender.
135 2L is too short for unnoticed candid shooting on the streets with my 400d. I use it only at dusk, for daylight shooting I find the combination D40x + 70-300 AF-S VR better.
I don't know about the handholdability tho', sometimes I find my viewfinder jumpy even with 135 f/2.

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm planning to get a 200 f2.8 to supplement my 135L too. I currently run with a 5D and 40D. The 135L on the 40d is close to a 200L on a 5D in terms of DOF and Focal length. I want the 200/2.8L so that I get a 200mm on my 5D and a 300mm on my 40D.
I've heard that the 200/2.8L is slightly less sharp wide open as the 135L, what are your experiences?

[cwphoto]

I'm planning to get a 200 f2.8 to supplement my 135L too. I currently run with a 5D and 40D. The 135L on the 40d is close to a 200L on a 5D in terms of DOF and Focal length. I want the 200/2.8L so that I get a 200mm on my 5D and a 300mm on my 40D.
I've heard that the 200/2.8L is slightly less sharp wide open as the 135L, what are your experiences?

In my experience the 200/2.8 II is at least as sharp as the 135/2.

[TheHoff]

I'm planning to get a 200 f2.8 to supplement my 135L too. I currently run with a 5D and 40D. The 135L on the 40d is close to a 200L on a 5D in terms of DOF and Focal length. I want the 200/2.8L so that I get a 200mm on my 5D and a 300mm on my 40D.
I've heard that the 200/2.8L is slightly less sharp wide open as the 135L, what are your experiences?

Not the comparison you asked for, but I recently did some indoor flash shots using both the 85/1.8 and the 200/2.8. With both lenses shooting at 2.8, the 200 wide open gave up nothing to the 85 even though it had the advantage of stopping down 1 and a third. The 200 was arguably better even though it was wide open as the CA was less.

[Jannie]

Shot in a nice fog,ISO3200 f2.8 1/50th sec (hand held, not quite there but I like it anyway) MKIII- it actually was much darker than the photo.
Processed in Lightroom as good as I could do it. I'm not real used to getting rid of a lot of noise but I'm pleased it came out as well as it did.
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb200/palousegirl/Tri-3200.jpg

[Photomek]

I am using the 200 2.8L II for some months now and I love it. :)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/3086152405_df4f489956.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086152405/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/3086963784_4f73558c7a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086963784/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/3086118481_78a859e468.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086118481/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/3086804164_21f24937a1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086804164/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3198/3086962726_964ac28a24.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086962726/sizes/o/)

More of this lense:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomek/tags/200f28l/

[TheHoff]

Very nice. That last one jumps off the screen with the colour and brilliance.

[Photomek]

Thanks! A few more:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/3086163559_8f85b5c12b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086163559/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/3086140469_bd8e15557d.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086140469/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3010/3085968105_961e80f870.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/photomek/3085968105/sizes/o/)

[KayakPhotos]

fantastic work photomec! Shows what a lens of this caliber can do in the right hands. Well done.

[GMCPhotographics]

I have one on order and I'll be putting mine through it's paces over the Xmass break in Dubai.

[ArthurH]

You won't regret buying it. We'll see the pictures!

[GMCPhotographics]

It's just arrived and it looks in good shape (I bought it S/H in mint condition, date code UV....2008 ) . It's a bit bigger and it feels heavier than the 135L. Maybe it's a bit front heavy.
Does the 400mm f5.6 L triopd Collar fit this lens too? There seems to be some confusion over the collar specs. I see there's a Black or White option but I'm not sure if the II variant fits or not.

[TheHoff]

Ring A II (B) is the correct one, of course the non-B white one would work as well --

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6749445&postcount=370

[Photomek]

Some "portraits" from football. :)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/3086974652_fee8873624.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086974652/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3224/3086847008_bcbfa7c409.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086847008/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/3086047921_bc9e674715.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/photomek/3086047921/sizes/o/)

[ArthurH]

Those are very good pictures Tomek, I like the contrast & bokeh. Conversion to black/white in last picture works very well too! But can somebody please explain a European guy like me why those football players have those weird black things beneath their eyes?

[Perry Ge]

Those are very good pictures Tomek, I like the contrast & bokeh. Conversion to black/white in last picture works very well too! But can somebody please explain a European guy like me why those football players have those weird black things beneath their eyes?

It's a) to prevent their reflections burning their retinas in the sun, and b) to look badass.

[ArthurH]

Ah, thanks!

[JeffreyVB]

Great pics Photomek!!

Strange to see football players with billboards on their jerseys. Over here, that is pretty much reserved for NASCAR. :D

[GMCPhotographics]

It's an interesting lens, I've only had mine a few days and here are my thoughts so far.
It's a fair bit bigger and heavier than the 135L, but not too the point to make an inconvinience. It's certainly shorter and a lot lighter than a 70-200/2.8 or f4 version. The hood is actually shorter than the 135L's hood....which is odd. It feels heavier and more front heavy. It's a cheaper build than the 135L, much of it's casing is plastic especially around the tripod mount recess. Which is a surprise, where as the 135L has more metal in it's construction. It's rear element is burried deep inside the lens where as the 135L's rear element is nearly flush with the rear mount.
My copy is just as fast to focus and it's accuracy is spot on. Optically, my copy is a gem. It's very very detailed and sharp. I've only tested it close to min focus distance. But from my initial test shots, it's noticably sharper and clearer than my old Sigma 70-200/2.8 (sold it a while back, but i still have my 40d/live view reference shots). It looks a little longer than my Sigma's 200mm claim...or maybe it was a little short. I seriously doubt that there's much between this lens and my 135L.
I fitted the tripod collar from my 400mm f5.6 to the recess on this lens and apart from looking a little odd, I think that it's quite stable. But it's not much more stable than using the camera's tripod socket instead. I think that I've been pre-programmed to think that a 200mm lens needs a tripod collar, but when it's this size and weight, probably not.
Once I get some decent shots nailed, i'll post some here.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I think that I've been pre-programmed to think that a 200mm lens needs a tripod collar, but when it's this size and weight, probably not.
Once I get some decent shots nailed, i'll post some here.

You don't need a collar.

Two questions (you have all the primes I'm thinking of getting/have got).

Do you find the 135 and 200 are a bit close to each other?

Do you find the 135 is a bit close to the 100mm macro?

[TheHoff]

I like the collar. I use the lens 70% of the time on a monopod. I can get very good shutter speeds without shake and twisting to portrait is quick. Using the camera's socket is never that convenient.


---

Nice work, Photomek!

[GMCPhotographics]

The ability to use the collar it there if needed but I'm not too sure that it is. I took a load of long exposure 135mm plus 1.4x tc images in Slovenia a few months back and they are pin sharp. This lens is roughly the same size and weight as that combo. The camera's tripod socket was fine.
I find that the 135 and 200 are quite a different angle of view and they compress slightly differently. Enough to warrent the need for both. Sure the 135 and 85 can diffuse the background just as well, if not better. But for wide open portraiture work, a 200mm f2.8 has a certain look to it. As does the 135L. Interestingly the 135L on a 40D has a simular look to a 200 f2.8 on a full frame but that's another topic.
I hardly take my 100mm macro with me. The 135L is very close in focal length and it's min focus distance is usually close enough for 95% of my macro needs. Adding a 1.4x TC, popping it on a 40D or using an extension tube helps too. But I'd never sell my 100mm macro, it's just too usefull for that other 5% of the time.
As to real world use of the ef 200mm f2.8, I can't really comment at the moment. i've only just picked up a copy.

[Stealthy Ninja]

In which situation would you think the 200mm is better than the 135 for portraits (and visa versa)? Since you mentioned they "look" different. :)

Just to keep on topic.
I photographed something I normally don't the other day. Turned out OK IMHO:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/3104215500_e57ecb9fa0_o.jpg

Not the most rare bird in the world ;) but I like the shot.

[Nick_b]

200mm went downtown today...

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/downtown/IMG_0440.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/downtown/IMG_0357.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/downtown/IMG_0382.jpg

[gambit]

Anymore samples of this beast?

[Stealthy Ninja]

Keepin' it rollin'.

This lens (or the 135 I think) is totally awesome for the candid shot.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/3146753506_09cf2b31ff_o.jpg

[GMCPhotographics]

Here's a few recents of my Mum and Dad in Dubai...a nice place to spend Xmass....
But new year is a bit quiet due to Sheik "Mo's" cancelling all new year celebrations in respect/mourning of the 300 Arabs killed by Israel over the last few days.
http://i.pbase.com/o3/61/468061/1/107621938.mmGJ8Mp3.IMG_0045.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o3/61/468061/1/107621942.n6YP3fQm.IMG_9864.jpg

[Perry Ge]

I really like this lens. Love the 200mm focal length. And I really like using it with a tripod collar too.

[ArthurH]

50D + 200L:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3224354474_016b082296.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/3223442871_681c79c50d.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/3224322026_fc7d073f29.jpg?v=0

[davidnholtjr]

Iceman!

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k143/P1X4R_2006/Bowen/Green%20Goblin/Iceman/IMG_0890.jpg


WOW!!!! That is awesome!

[KayakPhotos]

50D + 200L:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3224354474_016b082296.jpg?v=0

Simply beautiful. Looks like both the camera and lens are keepers! The technique was ok too;)

[ArthurH]

Thank you for your kind words, Daniel! The lens is very nice, but the 50D gives some mixed feelings sometimes; I used to shoot in JPG most of the time with the 400D, but the 50D's JPG's are quite poor in my opinion, so I'm teaching myself how to use RAW.
Besides, in JPG the white tiger became a blue tiger...

[Dusty]

Thank you for your kind words, Daniel! The lens is very nice, but the 50D gives some mixed feelings sometimes; I used to shoot in JPG most of the time with the 400D, but the 50D's JPG's are quite poor in my opinion, so I'm teaching myself how to use RAW.
Besides, in JPG the white tiger became a blue tiger...
So which WB were you using? ;)

[KayakPhotos]

So which WB were you using? ;)

He's right. You'll have to watch the WB with this camera. I know that the auto white balance pretty much sucks on the 40D, so I wouldn't imagine it was improved a whole lot. I use a custom white balance now and....problem solved. You'll be better off in the long run learning to use custom anyways. I love shooting in RAW myself. It has opened up a whole lot of possibilities. I have found JPEG to be nice when I am in a hurry or for snapshots. Having to PP all images can be a pain though when using a computer as slow as mine.

[John_TX]

He's right. You'll have to watch the WB with this camera. I know that the auto white balance pretty much sucks on the 40D, so I wouldn't imagine it was improved a whole lot. I use a custom white balance now and....problem solved. You'll be better off in the long run learning to use custom anyways. I love shooting in RAW myself. It has opened up a whole lot of possibilities. I have found JPEG to be nice when I am in a hurry or for snapshots. Having to PP all images can be a pain though when using a computer as slow as mine.

Are you creating a custom WB when you process the photos (e.g. using the WB tool and clicking on something that should be white in the pic?) Or are you actually setting in in the 40D by shooting a 18% gray card?

Just curious as to your method as I've lately been shooting in some less than ideal conditions, and your right, the 40D produces some REALLY screwy Auto WB settings that have to be corrected when RAW processing.

[ArthurH]

As for me, I shoot with Auto ISO (RAW or RAW+JPEG) and indeed click on something white on the picture (a tiger for example :) ) when WB is not right, or enter a custom ISO. Haven't used a 18% gray card yet. Also, color and contrast always need some extra 'power' on 50D, don't know what that's like on 40D. Below you can see the difference (left one = "out of camera", auto ISO).
PS this forum is about the 200L of course, and there's nothing wrong with that one!

[KayakPhotos]

Are you creating a custom WB when you process the photos (e.g. using the WB tool and clicking on something that should be white in the pic?) Or are you actually setting in in the 40D by shooting a 18% gray card?

Just curious as to your method as I've lately been shooting in some less than ideal conditions, and your right, the 40D produces some REALLY screwy Auto WB settings that have to be corrected when RAW processing.

I got the "lally cap" It is a nylon cover that fits over all lenses up to 77mm and is 18% grey. I just take a shot with this on in the lighting I am going to be shooting in and then use that to set my custom white balance. I like it because it substitutes as a easy to remove lens cap. In cases where the light differs at all I make slight RAW adjustments, but using this I have found it to be spot on a lot of the time. Only downside is if you have a hood on, you'll have to take it off to fit the cap over the lens. It's basically just like using a grey card, I just find it more convenient.
Look HERE (http://www.lallyphotography.com/store/) if interested.

[John_TX]

I got the "lally cap" It is a nylon cover that fits over all lenses up to 77mm and is 18% grey. I just take a shot with this on in the lighting I am going to be shooting in and then use that to set my custom white balance. I like it because it substitutes as a easy to remove lens cap. In cases where the light differs at all I make slight RAW adjustments, but using this I have found it to be spot on a lot of the time. Only downside is if you have a hood on, you'll have to take it off to fit the cap over the lens. It's basically just like using a grey card, I just find it more convenient.
Look HERE (http://www.lallyphotography.com/store/) if interested.

Interesting solution! Thanks for the link.

[Double Negative]

Wow, $30 for a piece of nylon and bungie? I'm in the wrong line of work! :shock:

I gotta start making my own "caps," "fongs" and "coats."

[KayakPhotos]

Interesting solution! Thanks for the link.
No problem.

[-Davo]

Hey everyone!

My name's Dave, from Australia, long time lurker, first time poster :o

Just picked this lens up, and was utterly amazed by it! Is my first L lens and i can confidently say... im hooked! :cool:

Just a couple of pics i took during a holiday in Malaysia, any C&C is welcome :)

Thanks!

(no PP done on the pics)

[-Davo]

and one last one :p

[GMCPhotographics]

Of all my lenses, my copy of the 200 f2.8L is the most accurtately focussing. It's spot on, even more accurate than my 135L. Wide open, it's my sharpest lens. Stopped down to f2.8, my 135L is a tad sharper. I'm really pixel picking here and in the real world, they are as sharp as it gets...
Most lens review sites, Photodo, slrgear ect rate this lens as being softer than the 135L but my copies don't show this to be true. I'm seriously wondering if lens review sites have a fundamental / inherant flaw with their testing at longer focal lengths. anything over 150mm seems to show softer results.

[TheHoff]

and one last one :p

338503


Is it just me or does this guy look like Malaysia's version of G.W. Bush?

[AlphaChicken]

Is it just me or does this guy look like Malaysia's version of G.W. Bush?

LOLOLOLOL LMFAO. +1

[TheHoff]

Apologies to the OP....

Bush and Malaysia dude compared (http://i41.tinypic.com/i3zcjo.jpg)

[Photo13]

Here are some recent ones
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/3209713755_555989c10c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3186012843_a83ed5337d_o.jpg

[ArthurH]

@ Photo13: second picture is really great!
About the first picture: what's that in that woman's nose...?

[-Davo]

Apologies to the OP....

Bush and Malaysia dude compared (http://i41.tinypic.com/i3zcjo.jpg)


ouch! easy on the grandfather dissing! his a cool guy! :o

[Double Negative]

Apologies to the OP....

Bush and Malaysia dude compared (http://i41.tinypic.com/i3zcjo.jpg)

But see, Bush is a monkey - whereas the Malaysian dude looks like a fine, distinguished gentleman of advanced wisdom. :D

[AlphaChicken]

HAHA! That comparison is priceless hoff. :-p

[kolok]

Great lens! It was my first L, first mounted on an Elan 7e and still use it extensively! Sharp as a tack (even with a TC), excellent color as well!


30D - 200 2.8L + 1.4xTC, 1/320, f/4, 400ISO, +1EV
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9130/gull3go9.jpg

[SoaringUSAEagle]

Nice photo Steve! Simply beautiful.

[Perry Ge]

:( So I just sold this lens. I'm gonna miss it. Without doubt one of the best lenses for the money I've ever owned (I like it better than the 135L) and one of the most overlooked in Canon's lineup. A real gem!

[Dorman]

:( So I just sold this lens. I'm gonna miss it. Without doubt one of the best lenses for the money I've ever owned (I like it better than the 135L) and one of the most overlooked in Canon's lineup. A real gem!

So why did you sell it and pick up the 135L then?:rolleyes:

[Perry Ge]

So why did you sell it and pick up the 135L then?:rolleyes:
Don't roll your eyes it was for purely practical reasons. Basically, my studio strobes sync at 1/200s, and with the 200mm prime I get camera shake, so I swapped it for the 135L, which gives me a closer MFD, extra stop if I need it for whatever reason, and most crucially the ability to shoot at sync speed without suffering noticeable camera shake. Plus on the MKIII it's close to a 200mm FOV. The 200L is the nicer lens though, IMO.

[Jannie]

That's a good point about the strobes, fortunately mine at their full power worst are 1/800th second.

Well I just posted some photos from this lens over on another thread which I shot this afternoon with the 1.4 tele extender. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7229085#post7229085 Very sweet combination and very lightweight considering the focal lengths I get to work with. I don't think I'll be able to part with it just yet. It's a solid yes lens wide open, and the same goes wide open with the 1.4x and the 2x tele extenders, which give portability weight/size wise, easy to carry, very sharp in all situations and, well for now the 300 f4 IS is going to have to wait, at this point I'd be more inclined to see if I can save up and have both.

[Perry Ge]

That's a good point about the strobes, fortunately mine at their full power worst are 1/800th second.

Well I just posted some photos from this lens over on another thread which I shot this afternoon with the 1.4 tele extender. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7229085#post7229085 Very sweet combination and very lightweight considering the focal lengths I get to work with. I don't think I'll be able to part with it just yet. It's a solid yes lens wide open, and the same goes wide open with the 1.4x and the 2x tele extenders, which give portability weight/size wise, easy to carry, very sharp in all situations and, well for now the 300 f4 IS is going to have to wait, at this point I'd be more inclined to see if I can save up and have both.

But isn't your sync speed limited by your camera's sync speed?

Of all the glass I've owned, the 200L was the hardest lens to part with, and I already miss it, but I just haven't used it lately, plus the sync issue, it had to go. :(