Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

[versedmb]

cool stuff guys, im gonna give the kenko a try...

Wonderful lens with ext tubes. I usually use 36mm of Kenko tubes....



http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/593903013_YMwLD-L.jpg

[zincozinco]

Fisrt few with the new tc1.4 just checking the reach and sharpness. looks good to me.

[echo]

Isn't there a specific mkI thread?

[echo]

First snaps on my ye olde 1991 200L

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/605117725_j9Lcv-XL.jpg
f/4

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/605090196_n9eyp-XL.jpg
f/2.8

Pretty happy :)

[Dalus]

Very Nice Echo! :D

[stu46]

Version I

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2555/3683442508_97e474c630_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3417/3316059052_66153470f5_o.jpg

[echo]

The first photo I took using the 200L mkI, lots wrong with it but I thought it's alright

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/607734812_9P55w-XL.jpg
f/2.8 at 1/80th

[Lester Wareham]

Isn't there a specific mkI thread?

A search does not show one up.

I think the only difference is the Mk I had a built in pull forward hood rather like the 300 f4L IS. So optically it should be the same, the Mk II is just better shaded.

[Gary2027]

As small and light as this lens is, I really enjoy taking it with me whenever I leave home. I often take a 1.4x along with it, and even a 2x sometimes, it still looks good. I just think it's a terrific lens. Shooting into the sun, no flair.
http://www.pbase.com/gary/image/115880309/original.jpg
First one was f8, this one is f2.8
http://www.pbase.com/gary/image/115415873/original.jpg

[Hermes]

A search does not show one up.

I think the only difference is the Mk I had a built in pull forward hood rather like the 300 f4L IS. So optically it should be the same, the Mk II is just better shaded.

You're right.

I decided to try and find an MKI and now own one. The built in hood is very quick & easy to use. The MKII's hood is much larger and according to feedback on FM, some have reported it doesn't attach very securely.

The lens is very good at dealing with flare anyway so the MKI has become a bit of a favourite of candid shooters. You can use the lens with no hood to remain as inconspicuous as possible and then quickly slide it up if you run into a flare-inducing situation. The MKII with its long hood stands out more and storing & attaching the hood is obviously more of a hassle when out and about.

[Gary2027]

I agree with you. That hood is big. When I use it in a sports shooting environment I have it attached for protection because when you're switching cameras in your hands quickly, things happen. But in a slower paced environment and/or when traveling light, I often leave the hood at home, and just take some extra care.

My hood attaches very securely though, I haven't had any issues there.

[google]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2574/3800181610_c372bdf815_b.jpg

[Lester Wareham]

You're right.

I decided to try and find an MKI and now own one. The built in hood is very quick & easy to use. The MKII's hood is much larger and according to feedback on FM, some have reported it doesn't attach very securely.

The lens is very good at dealing with flare anyway so the MKI has become a bit of a favourite of candid shooters. You can use the lens with no hood to remain as inconspicuous as possible and then quickly slide it up if you run into a flare-inducing situation. The MKII with its long hood stands out more and storing & attaching the hood is obviously more of a hassle when out and about.

Can't say I have had any problems with hood security, I agree a slide up hood is very convenient.

[Joaaso]

@ Gary 2027 -that first one of the sunset is really stunning! made me loose my breath for a few seconds:P

[echo]

Wide open at f/2.8 (mark one)

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/635799780_HN5uD-XL.jpg

[AlistairD]

Mark I with 2x Extender.
ISO 800, f/8, 1/250
We were playing with Spot Metering and manual. Only PP is an amount of Sharpening in ACR.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2597/3875755556_b13e965da6_b.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

any low light samples, like indoor concerts, highly considering this lens

[blue9]

A search does not show one up.

I think the only difference is the Mk I had a built in pull forward hood rather like the 300 f4L IS. So optically it should be the same, the Mk II is just better shaded.

Are you absolutely sure that's the only difference? I have googled about this but can't find anything. I think i have read that the mk2 had an improvement in coating? (rear coating)

[BlueTsunami]

I've researched this lens extensively and yep, they are optically the same. The hood on the MKI is supposedly not as good as the MKII though (as far as providing shade).

[GMCPhotographics]

I've read that the mk I's hood was more fragile but more convienient

[Lester Wareham]

Are you absolutely sure that's the only difference? I have googled about this but can't find anything. I think i have read that the mk2 had an improvement in coating? (rear coating)

I've researched this lens extensively and yep, they are optically the same. The hood on the MKI is supposedly not as good as the MKII though (as far as providing shade).

this is my understanding, there does not seem to be a technical report to help. Other than finding two versions of eyes of EOS or the links below you could ask Canon.


Try http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_200_28l_usm.html

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_200_28lii_usm.html

[palaima]

Hello, is anyone using this lens for street photography? Because i am wandering if i should get this or the 100mm macro...

[krb]

I've read that the mk I's hood was more fragile but more convienient
I don't see anything fragile about it. It doesn't seem big enough to shade the lens but I certainly wouldn't call it fragile.

Everything I have been able to find comparing the two says that they are identical except for the lens hood. And the mkI comes with the tripod ring rather than being an optional accessory. I have the mkI and love it.

[krb]

Hello, is anyone using this lens for street photography? Because i am wandering if i should get this or the 100mm macro...
My street/city kit is 24-105 as primary with the 200 2.8 as a telephoto and the 50 1.4 in case I need something fast for low light shooting. A really great kit that doesn't attract too much attention.

[echo]

I've read that the mk I's hood was more fragile but more convienient

Not fragile, much more compact :)

[Lester Wareham]

Not fragile, much more compact :)

I don't see why it should be fragile, the 300/f4 IS hood is Ok, also I have my old FD 135mm which has an integral metal hood, that was never a problem.

However, this smaller diamiter hoods will be a lot less effective as a hood.

[kandyredcoi]

any low light samples, like indoor concerts, highly considering this lens

wow anyone? :rolleyes:

[patosan]

wow anyone? :rolleyes:

Just 2 from my first concert (and my first day with this lens!). Tried to keep ISO low on my 40D. Great colors, fast AF.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/28/abba1.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8822/abba2.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

^moar, thanx!

[exodusfman800]

Maybe I should consider shooting some motocross - love this one Nick. ;)
+1 me

[exodusfman800]

How is this lens' sharpness compared to the 135L? I know they're both sharp...but there's a $300 difference between the two, so I don't know which one to get :/

[BlueTsunami]

How is this lens' sharpness compared to the 135L? I know they're both sharp...but there's a $300 difference between the two, so I don't know which one to get :/

Its a hard decision. From what I've read and seen (I'm also in the same dilemma has you) with the 135L, you're paying for the larger aperture. The 200/2.8 is nice but there's also the zoom that covers that range and aperture, so the 135L is unique in that regard (no zoom hits that focal length and aperture). So the 200/2.8 becomes the odd man out, more of a specialized lens than the 135L.

People who have owned both state that the lenses render similarly, both are very sharp wide open at all apertures, across the frame. So the question then becomes, which focal length would you feel comfortable with (200mm would be pretty long on a crop) and if you need/want that extra stop of light.

[exodusfman800]

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll stick with the 135 because I do need that extra stop because I'm going to be shooing indoor sports with some crappy lighting.

[versedmb]

This lens is simply amazing.


With 1.4X TC on my 5D wide open (f/4)....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/633687990_CvWws-XL.jpg

[Naturalist]

Excellent image Michael!

[versedmb]

Excellent image Michael!

Thanks.

This is actually with the older mkI version with the built in hood.

[Moooney]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Mooney/IMG_9234.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Mooney/IMG_9273.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Mooney/IMG_9325.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Mooney/IMG_9356.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Mooney/IMG_9397.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Mooney/IMG_9427.jpg

this one was taken at 1/30s handheld:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/Mooney/IMG_9287.jpg

[echo]

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/649623120_5qyzS-XL.jpg
f/2.8

[kandyredcoi]

^nice!

[versedmb]

^nice!

Ditto, wonderful shot.

[nazpicman]

though I haven't used it a whole lot YET, the 200 2.8L is a great lens to have when you need the reach but also the need to be discrete. It is an alternative to the 70-200, but not at all a replacement. Would love to have the speed of the 135L also, but this 200L is a much more useful FL for my occasional needs. Will be teaming it with TC's sometime in the future for greater flexibility. I am a firm believer in having alternatives and options in my kit to go with whatever the situation calls for. The 70-200 is the best for concert shooting, but would be hesitant to take it out for random street shooting.

[Double Negative]

This lens is simply amazing...

I'll say. That's a sick shot!

[DonJuanMair]

does anyone here use this lens for portraits/headshots?

[echo]

does anyone here use this lens for portraits/headshots?

Yes - and it's superb :) A little space *is* needed :D

[p360]

^ What he said.

[DonJuanMair]

Well I would use other lenses for indoor shots. I see a lot of ppl using the 70-200 at 200mm for headshots and the bokeh looks great. Can anyone post an example of a headshot taken with a full frame for me pls :)

[stu46]

Well I would use other lenses for indoor shots. I see a lot of ppl using the 70-200 at 200mm for headshots and the bokeh looks great. Can anyone post an example of a headshot taken with a full frame for me pls :)

@2.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8378006&postcount=606

[dannygt]

does anyone here use this lens for portraits/headshots?


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/3930777242_51f5cf55d7.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3930776796_ca11ccb4c4.jpg

[krb]

I can't remember where it was around here, but several months ago somebody posted a tight headshot taken with this lens and in the 100% crop you could clearly see the edges of the woman's contact lens.

[DonJuanMair]

nice dannygt!!

thats amazing krb!

this lens is next on my list!!

[echo]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3930776796_ca11ccb4c4.jpg

Wow! :)

[DonJuanMair]

indeed!! look at that bokeh

[dannygt]

Oh btw, this was done with a 40D.. so the bokeh will propably much swallower at 2.8 on a 5D.

and thanks :)

[DonJuanMair]

nice i love your pp too

[Project22a]

How's the focusing speed on this compared to the 70-200's?

[krb]

How's the focusing speed on this compared to the 70-200's?
I've never used the zooms but the prime is very fast and easily beats anything else in my gear list. I've seen others on these boards describe it as "near instant".

[versedmb]

does anyone here use this lens for portraits/headshots?

Both on 5d....

f/3.2...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/609189155_Wj2Th-L.jpg



f/2.8...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/595906793_nMdG7-L.jpg

[versedmb]

Wide open with kenko 1.4X....(f/4)....

http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/648654973_NoVhB-XL.jpg

[Goos]

Still loving this lens <3 (click for bigger size)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2650/3961566475_0002384365.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2650/3961566475_0002384365_b.jpg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/3838009466_1ba6a2a6b4.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/3838009466_1ba6a2a6b4_b.jpg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3837088315_9d99d2dd5e.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3837088315_9d99d2dd5e_b.jpg)

[versedmb]

With 1.4X @ f/4.5 on 5d....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/663055431_HWEEM-XL.jpg

[Naturalist]

This is one sweet lens!

Shot handheld at ISO 200 with the Canon XTi at 1/3000 sec. using the EF 200 f/2.8L lens at f/3.5

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

[ScootersDaddy]

wrong thread

[Dorman]

Is that guy wearing a propeller brewing company t-shirt?

[ScootersDaddy]

Oops! Wrong thread. They were taken with the new 100mm 2.8L... :-)

Nah, it was a propeller repair shop for boats.

[Cesium]

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h163/newtheory/IMG_9674.jpg

[DonJuanMair]

This lens is 799 on amazon. I have 700 coming in from shoots.
Do i ;

A. Be sensible, get registered as a business, get a new light stand and 2 cybersync receivers and a bag to carry all my equipment or

B. Get this lens!

Man decisions

[dannygt]

This lens is 799 on amazon. I have 700 coming in from shoots.
Do i ;

A. Be sensible, get registered as a business, get a new light stand and 2 cybersync receivers and a bag to carry all my equipment or

B. Get this lens!

Man decisions

Both ;)

[Cameron Cushman]

highly considering selling my 70-200 f4L to help fund for this lens

[DonJuanMair]

Both ;)

Ha nah I'm def getting it sometime in 2 weeks!

[TheHoff]

Here are two from today with a friend's little girl... 1DS2 & 200/2.8 w/ 12mm ext. tube. I like using the tube a lot when working with babies & toddlers as it gives you working distance and nice isolation.

http://imgur.com/iIHjA.jpg

http://imgur.com/xV553.jpg

[skulpt]

This lens never lets me down in sharpness. I can shoot basically wide open and know it will be sharp no matter what.

[kelleystar27]

I shot these from the sidelines with a 200mm f/2.8L on a 40D.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13856117@N08/3978750105/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13856117@N08/3979511264/

[echo]

I'm finding that I pick this guy up over the 85L for day's out now. I am really starting to get in to it :)

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/670132716_7XiCT-XL.jpg
f/2.8

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/670114621_Ni9mq-XL.jpg
f/2.8

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/670152270_5LbHb-XL.jpg
f/2.8

Mike

[kelleystar27]

I shot these from the sidelines with a 200mm f/2.8L on a 40D. I was testing out using a prime instead of my usual zoom for this because. It was slightly more challenging as I am always shooting the long end of my zoom (80-200/70-300). Next week I will try this with my 200mm prime and the kenko 1.4X tc. for part of the game. I was generally pretty happy with the reach of my 200mm at the sidelines. I would love to have two bodies to switch between a zoom and a 300 prime!! I agree that it's tough to get the inside line with a 200mm...probably pretty tough with any lens really. I am pretty new to football pictures so any C & C would be greatly appreciated. I would love to get my pictures sharper, this is partly why I wanted to try the prime vs. my zoom. Would a FF body get me better results? Thanks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13856117@N08/3978750105/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13856117@N08/3979511264/

[Joaaso]

I've been thinking about getting this lens for a while, but had planned not to get it until after christmas sometime..But on monday I found a very good price -at least with our currency.. normally it's sold for 7000NOK (1200USD), but on monday one store listed it for 5000NOK (875USD -which seems to be around the normal US price:P) -probably by mistake cause they've corrected it back to 7000 now, but not until after I had placed my order:D It's waiting for me in the post office now, so I'll be picking it up in a few hours -can't wait:D

[DonJuanMair]

Ordering this lens tomorrow, can't wait!

[nightcat]

I'm finding that I pick this guy up over the 85L for day's out now. I am really starting to get in to it :)

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/670132716_7XiCT-XL.jpg
f/2.8

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/670114621_Ni9mq-XL.jpg
f/2.8

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/670152270_5LbHb-XL.jpg
f/2.8

Mike

All over these photo websites you read the statement that a 200mm lens is FAR too long for portraits. (many say that 100mm is too long!). These excellent photos are evidence how rediculous those statements are. The colors are wonderful, the bokeh is near perfect. My 200mm 2,8 is my favorite lens. These are wonderful shots!

[maranelloboy05]

Just sold my 70-200 to buy a 5d and thinking of getting this lens. Has anyone done any automotive photoshoots using it? How well does it preform at f2.8, I hate buying a lens just to find I can't use it at its maximum aperture? Thanks guys.

[DonJuanMair]

That's all I'm going to use it for.
If u give me a couple weeks ill let you know how it is!

[nightcat]

Just sold my 70-200 to buy a 5d and thinking of getting this lens. Has anyone done any automotive photoshoots using it? How well does it preform at f2.8, I hate buying a lens just to find I can't use it at its maximum aperture? Thanks guys.

I can attest to its performance at 2.8. I also have the 70-200 f/4 IS L. I expected this highly rated lens to match the 200mm 2.8 at f/4. As it turned out, the 200mm 2.8 was sharper at 2.8 than the zoom was at f/4. Thats impressive!

[dannygt]

Just sold my 70-200 to buy a 5d and thinking of getting this lens. Has anyone done any automotive photoshoots using it? How well does it preform at f2.8, I hate buying a lens just to find I can't use it at its maximum aperture? Thanks guys.

I have a pair of 135mm f2 and 200mm f2.8,

they are pretty much the same in term of sharpness wide open. And of course, nothing comparable with the zoom lens.

[maranelloboy05]

Thanks everyone, I think after I find my 5d it shouldn't be long until this is in my hands.

[DonJuanMair]

there was one in stock on amazon last night for 800. I hesitated and was going to wait until i got home, i got home and it had gone!!

does anyone know where i can get one of these?

[DonJuanMair]

just ordered!!! will be here Tuesday, i hate ordering on Fridays sometimes :)

[echo]

All over these photo websites you read the statement that a 200mm lens is FAR too long for portraits. (many say that 100mm is too long!). These excellent photos are evidence how rediculous those statements are. The colors are wonderful, the bokeh is near perfect. My 200mm 2,8 is my favorite lens. These are wonderful shots!

Hey thanks Nightcat :) This is the Mk I version of the lens with built in hood and was manufactured in 1991 I think!

[Joaaso]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3996805968_07f76b118c_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanjoy87/3996805968/sizes/o/)
Art installation in a river in Oslo, right outside where I work..

[robtography]

Just sold my 70-200 to buy a 5d and thinking of getting this lens. Has anyone done any automotive photoshoots using it? How well does it preform at f2.8, I hate buying a lens just to find I can't use it at its maximum aperture? Thanks guys.

Just did some today with my VW, maybe i'll post em up. I love this lens.

[Todd Lambert]

Hey, been thinking of this lens. Problem is, I already have a 70-200 2.8 IS and I just picked up a 135L as well.

Question is, would this lens be a waste for me? I'd get rid of the 70-200, so is it worth it to have both the 135L and the 200L? I figured I'd probably add a 1.4 TC in the mix as well, just to cover everything.

The 70-200 is so damn big and heavy.. just wondering if two smaller lens would work better?

[DonJuanMair]

Post them!
I want to see

[nightcat]

Hey, been thinking of this lens. Problem is, I already have a 70-200 2.8 IS and I just picked up a 135L as well.

Question is, would this lens be a waste for me? I'd get rid of the 70-200, so is it worth it to have both the 135L and the 200L? I figured I'd probably add a 1.4 TC in the mix as well, just to cover everything.

The 70-200 is so damn big and heavy.. just wondering if two smaller lens would work better?

If you use that zoom at the lower focal range as well as at 200mm, then its probably best to keep the zoom. If you use it mainly at 200mm, then you'd be better off with the prime. I couldn't imagine using a heavy zoom, when I need the 200mm range. The 200mm 2.8 is smaller and much lighter by comparison.

How do you like your 135mm 2.0? From what I've seen, it appears to be a great lens!

[Todd Lambert]

Yes, I like the 135L a lot. It's fantastic. I also have the 85L for the shorter end of things, so if I got rid of the 70-200, it would take three lenses to cover the focal range of just one lens, which sucks. However, the weight and cumbersomeness of the 70-200 would be offset by 3 much smaller, lighter lenses. Damn, I don't know. I am kind of attached to my 70-200, but I really like the prime sharpness. I guess I'd be nuts to keep everything, eh?

[TheHoff]

I use an 85mm and 200mm and find no need for a 135mm in between. I think if I already had the 135mm I'd probably use a 1.4x to get the 200/2.8 but I prefer to have the 200mm and use the 1.4x to get to 280mm/4. Both show very little degradation with a 1.4x.

[DonJuanMair]

Just got this lens, took a pic of it and im off tomorrow to use it!!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2527/4009861764_fa56a1e762.jpg

[DonJuanMair]

Just took a quick one tonight of my car

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/4010283446_c1ae47dfed_o.jpg

[robtography]

Here's a couple of my toy. Hard to find a good long empty road here in San Diego to get a cool DOF.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/4010782218_c2bc06f689_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/4010779904_4293877cea_b.jpg

[robtography]

And one of the 200 :cool: taken with the nifty...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2621/3935315994_851a1f4156.jpg

[Methodical]

Kelley those shots on Flickr are outstanding. Did you shoot Jpeg or Raw. I am just tinkering with little league football...I will have to give my 200 a workout. I've used the 300 f4. Also at what aperture were those taken?

I shot these from the sidelines with a 200mm f/2.8L on a 40D. I was testing out using a prime instead of my usual zoom for this because. It was slightly more challenging as I am always shooting the long end of my zoom (80-200/70-300). Next week I will try this with my 200mm prime and the kenko 1.4X tc. for part of the game. I was generally pretty happy with the reach of my 200mm at the sidelines. I would love to have two bodies to switch between a zoom and a 300 prime!! I agree that it's tough to get the inside line with a 200mm...probably pretty tough with any lens really. I am pretty new to football pictures so any C & C would be greatly appreciated. I would love to get my pictures sharper, this is partly why I wanted to try the prime vs. my zoom. Would a FF body get me better results? Thanks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13856117@N08/3978750105/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13856117@N08/3979511264/

[Methodical]

The bug looks good


Here's a couple of my toy. Hard to find a good long empty road here in San Diego to get a cool DOF.

[Methodical]

If I let my wife see this pic she will have me modeling her Rx. Nice shot

Just took a quick one tonight of my car

[ScootersDaddy]

With the 1.4 extender:

http://www.atwoodknives.com/pics/bunny1web.jpg

[palaima]

^ it looks to me like the focus is behind the eyes..am i correct?

Love those cars shots!

[robtography]

The bug looks good

Thanks!

[mochoajr]

Here's a couple of my toy. Hard to find a good long empty road here in San Diego to get a cool DOF.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/4010782218_c2bc06f689_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/4010779904_4293877cea_b.jpg

Nice!!

[nightcat]

A shot from the recent Purdue / Northern Illinois game with the 200mm 2.8. This was taken at 3.2 and cropped.

[Tosh-san]

The 200 2.8 MKI is currently my only Canon lens. I just love it.
The 200 2.8 and the 135 2 are my two favorite Canon lenses.
A 7D arrives on my doorstep tomorrow, so I get to play with my 200 again.
I'm going to use the 200 with the 7D for a light and mobile field sports rig.

Here's a 200 2.8 shot from my former 5D:
http://gtikeda.smugmug.com/photos/681427752_gsenG-O.jpg

[robtography]

Nice!!

Thanks! Tosh-san-cool shot!!

[DonJuanMair]

here are some from this lovely lens!!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2540/4013717372_85812fc2e7_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2541/4012951357_d60f95d3ef_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/4013717410_c50fe3d28f_o.jpg

[TheHoff]

Hey DWM, glad to see you onboard with the 200. The shots above all look about 1/3 stop under, though, you might want to check your calibration (or I should check mine...).

[DonJuanMair]

it may be my PP or my monitor..... i def need to get it calibrated

[Tom H. Photography]

I went ahead and ordered mine yesterday. Can't wait till it arrives. I use a 70-300 at the moment but I'll be selling that one soon. I tried a friends 200 2.8 a few weeks ago with a 1.4 TC and it was a huge amount sharper than my 70-300 at 300mm. Since I only use that lens at 135, 200 and 300 anyways I thought I'd be better of with the 135L, 200L and a 1.4 TC.

I considered the 70-200 2.8 for a very long time, but it's size, whiteness and weight just puts me off and the f4 just isn't fast enough for me...

Anyone have any shots of this lens with a 2x TC? I'd love to see what one could do with that!

[dannygt]

I'd be better of with the 135L, 200L and a 1.4 TC.


Have you tried both? The difference is really not that much between the two. Both are amazing lens but now that I own both, I'm selling my 200mm 2.8 'cause I like the bokeh on the 135mm better for portrait and with a 1.4x I get an actual 189mm 2.8...!

Of course if you have enough money, go for both. If it wasnt about money, I'd keep both.

[Tosh-san]

Thanks! Tosh-san-cool shot!!

Thanks, Rob.
I like your Bug shots as well.
I had a 1973 orange Super Beetle in H.S. and college. Good memories. :)

[Tom H. Photography]

Have you tried both? The difference is really not that much between the two. Both are amazing lens but now that I own both, I'm selling my 200mm 2.8 'cause I like the bokeh on the 135mm better for portrait and with a 1.4x I get an actual 189mm 2.8...!

Of course if you have enough money, go for both. If it wasnt about money, I'd keep both.

Well at the moment I use the 135mm range mainly for portraits and as long walkaround. And the 200mm and 300mm range for animals, birds, sports etc. Getting only the 135 with a 1.4 would give me a maximum range of 189mm and that's not enough for my needs.

The 200 f2.8 with a 1.4 TC gives me a 280mm f4, and with a 2x TC I'd have a 400mm f5.6. That's a long range on a crop body. But I'm curious to see how sharp the 2x TC pictures are.

My big beef with the 70-300 is that anything above 135mm is no longer sharp, and it is almost unusable at 300mm. Even when using a tripod only 1 in 5 pictures is adequately sharp. When I tried a 200 f2.8 I was amazed at how sharp 200mm can actually be :-) I'm spoiled because my 17-55 is razor sharp. That's what frustrates me the most about the 70-300...

[mochoajr]

Just got mine this afternoon. Not a great first test shot but it does look sharp on my monitor.

[dannygt]

Well at the moment I use the 135mm range mainly for portraits and as long walkaround. And the 200mm and 300mm range for animals, birds, sports etc. Getting only the 135 with a 1.4 would give me a maximum range of 189mm and that's not enough for my needs.

The 200 f2.8 with a 1.4 TC gives me a 280mm f4, and with a 2x TC I'd have a 400mm f5.6. That's a long range on a crop body. But I'm curious to see how sharp the 2x TC pictures are.

My big beef with the 70-300 is that anything above 135mm is no longer sharp, and it is almost unusable at 300mm. Even when using a tripod only 1 in 5 pictures is adequately sharp. When I tried a 200 f2.8 I was amazed at how sharp 200mm can actually be :-) I'm spoiled because my 17-55 is razor sharp. That's what frustrates me the most about the 70-300...

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't really shoot wild life and sport tho, that's why I'm selling it.

I would think of the 400 f5.6L or the 300mm F4 IS L if I were you,

back to the thread now :)

[Tom H. Photography]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't really shoot wild life and sport tho, that's why I'm selling it.

I would think of the 400 f5.6L or the 300mm F4 IS L if I were you,

back to the thread now :)

300 and 400 are way too big, heavy and white to be used inconspicuously. And they don't fit in my flightcase so I can't bring them along to work. That's a big no-no in my case :-)

But yes, let's get back to thread.

[Joaaso]

The 200 2.8 MKI is currently my only Canon lens. I just love it.
The 200 2.8 and the 135 2 are my two favorite Canon lenses.
A 7D arrives on my doorstep tomorrow, so I get to play with my 200 again.
I'm going to use the 200 with the 7D for a light and mobile field sports rig.

Here's a 200 2.8 shot from my former 5D:
http://gtikeda.smugmug.com/photos/681427752_gsenG-O.jpg
awesome shot!

[philthejuggler]

Subscribing have just got this great lens!

[jwoods85]

Just got from spring break. Loved the 200 2.8. Size , colors, IQ . You can shoot low key.
Enjoyed the scenery.

i'd love to see a crop of the "sharpness" lmao.

[kandyredcoi]

great images everyone!

[DonJuanMair]

i went out to shoot the sign and was going to do it all in color and have the light stream from the traffic in the shot, but Elvis was there, with his car. I waited and waited and waited for the cars in front of him to go, i was there an hour and then bingo!

F5.6, iso 2500 to keep the shutter at 1/25 sec

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/4034102582_60eff10036_o.jpg

[Grady69]

i went out to shoot the sign and was going to do it all in color and have the light stream from the traffic in the shot, but Elvis was there, with his car. I waited and waited and waited for the cars in front of him to go, i was there an hour and then bingo!

F5.6, iso 2500 to keep the shutter at 1/25 sec

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/4034102582_60eff10036_o.jpg

Nice shot! I knew he was alive and living in Vegas!! lol

[dzaneh]

I have 17-40, 24-105, and just got the 200/2.8
I hVe the 135/2.0 on order...

[DonJuanMair]

thanks grady!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2540/4038702390_ca92a2cb4e_o.jpg

[DonJuanMair]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2748/4038260663_ced39144aa_o.jpg

[Tom H. Photography]

My own 200 arrived yesterday. No more using my nephews :-)

A quick shot through the window to a tree outside on a windy day. This thing is sharp!


ISO 100, hand held at 1/250. 200% crop, pp in lightroom.
http://tomhenderix.smugmug.com/Travel/Belgium/Kessel-Lo/TomH200910240019-1/690747853_WUEUY-L.jpg

Edit:

Some more from this afternoon with a 1.4x TC.

http://tomhenderix.smugmug.com/Travel/Belgium/Kessel-Lo/TomH20091024Provinci/690987130_vsUcY-L.jpg

http://tomhenderix.smugmug.com/Travel/Belgium/Kessel-Lo/TomH20091024Provinci/690987419_YVjJt-L.jpg

http://tomhenderix.smugmug.com/Travel/Belgium/Kessel-Lo/TomH20091024Provinci/690986841_tffn8-L.jpg

[versedmb]

^ - very nice. Excellent lens with a TC.

I don't use this lens enough, but every time I do I'm reminded that I need to use it more often....

Both wide open on a 5d...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/692522296_yeAYx-XL.jpg


http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/692524697_GoLW4-XL.jpg

[krb]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/4043958465_6444960545_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennethrberry/4043958465/sizes/l/

[dannygt]

I just sold mine :(

I'm feeling a bit nostalgic already heeee :D

[mochoajr]

F18 at Fort Worth Air Show

[inthedeck]

Figured I'd give this thread a bump. I purchased a used one, from another member of the forums. Hope it's a FL I can use for the long haul. ;)

More pics, please! I've been through the thread, some very nice examples from you all. :)

[Tom H. Photography]

Figured I'd give this thread a bump. I purchased a used one, from another member of the forums. Hope it's a FL I can use for the long haul. ;)

More pics, please! I've been through the thread, some very nice examples from you all. :)

Here's one from last week. Hand held at night, f/2.8, ISO 800, 1/40 sec. Looks pretty sharp to me. Love this lens.

http://tomhenderix.smugmug.com/Travel/France/Aix-en-Provence/TomH20091025aix-en/693355477_rgLRm-L.jpg

[inthedeck]

Cool. What do you happen to find youself shooting, with this lens, other than the statue as shown above?

I'm sure I'll find a use for it, once I get it an figure out what it'll work for best. The waiting game...gotta love it. :lol:

[krb]

Works well for birds if they let you close enough.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/3852170651_dd112b67ba.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennethrberry/3852170651/sizes/o/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2423/3852170105_bfed3dcca9.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennethrberry/3852170105/sizes/o/

[inthedeck]

^^Nice shots. Hummers are gone from here, for now. Maybe next year. :(

[Tom H. Photography]

Birds go great indeed with a 1.4x TC or even a 2x TC in bright light, same goes for sports. Street candids in the city go very well also.

Taken yesterday after sunset with a 1.4x TC. ISO 400, f/4, 1/30 sec.
http://tomhenderix.smugmug.com/Animals/Wildlife/TomH20091028abdijvanpark0296-2/696370648_xmN6W-L.jpg

[DonJuanMair]

I think I'm having buyers remorse with this lens. I wish I would have gotten the 135L :(

[inthedeck]

I have the 135...I'm curious how it'll compare to the 200. I don't use the 135 all too much, so, I'm hoping this one isn't that way, as well. :(

[DonJuanMair]

Well I really thought this would be great for my car pics, but its actually really limiting. You have to stand real real far back to get anything in the frame other than just the subject.
So my most used lens is the 100mm. I think maybe I need to shoot more with this, I don't know if its that sharp at f2.8 as I would have hoped. But the decision is not out yet on that. Need to shoot more at f2.8. Ill see how much I use it on my next car shoot.
I do know the 135L would get a lot lot more use for me.

What do you shoot Manish?

[inthedeck]

I shoot everything. :lol: Honestly.

Lately, I have used the 135 on occasion for model shoots, but, I tend to always go back to the 85mm FL. The 135 is nice and tight, so, I'm hoping the distance needed for the 200 creates some nice compression for on location shoots. In studio, I don't have enough space to use it I don't think...but, I will try.

I'd say it takes about a month, or less, for me to realize if a lens is worth it, or not. I realized in a week, that the 85L was it, for me. ;) It's a hard spot to fill, I tell ya. :lol:

[DonJuanMair]

I have yet to try it out on ppl but I want to, I just don't have the time!

[BlueTsunami]

Well I really thought this would be great for my car pics, but its actually really limiting. You have to stand real real far back to get anything in the frame other than just the subject.
So my most used lens is the 100mm. I think maybe I need to shoot more with this, I don't know if its that sharp at f2.8 as I would have hoped. But the decision is not out yet on that. Need to shoot more at f2.8. Ill see how much I use it on my next car shoot.
I do know the 135L would get a lot lot more use for me.

What do you shoot Manish?

Not an eloquent solution but you may like to try Mosaic Stitching (aka Brenizer Method)...

Link: http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/

The only thing you need (apart from the camera and lens) is a program that'll take all those images and stitches them (Like this freeware: Hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/)).

Its basically shooting a panoramic to get all of a scene or subject in a single frame. One example is, lets say you can only get a 1/3rd of the car in the frame. You set the camera up (Manual, Focus on where you want then turn AF off), then shoot the various frames (making sure the other 2/3rds of your car are in the other frames). You then stitch it all together and the program will spit out a single frame with all of your car in it.

Here's an example of a car being shot with the method (from an 85mm lens, using 7 frames in Portrait orientation): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyphoto/3595246818/

[inthedeck]

^^Pretty cool technique. Does the camera stay on the same 'plane' so to speak, while shooting all the images, or does that not matter?

Lets take the girl, for example. He has the focus locked on her eyes. He's shooting these frames, in the pattern he describes. Does the camera stay on a tripod, or can you hand-hold this, and take the shots? What if the shooter is using the center point. Does that always stay on the eyes no matter what part of the scene is being shot?

[BlueTsunami]

^^Pretty cool technique. Does the camera stay on the same 'plane' so to speak, while shooting all the images, or does that not matter?

Lets take the girl, for example. He has the focus locked on her eyes. He's shooting these frames, in the pattern he describes. Does the camera stay on a tripod, or can you hand-hold this, and take the shots? What if the shooter is using the center point. Does that always stay on the eyes no matter what part of the scene is being shot?

What I do is focus on whatever part of the subject I want in focus (or the subject completely if they fill up the frame) and then not touch the focus at all as I'm shooting parts of the subject or around it. You can do this handheld or on a tripod (tripod being the best way to do it if you want complete consistence with each frame but handheld is very doable). If the DoF is really thin, any movement back and forth could throw the focus off but all that really matters is if you ensure that your main subject is in focus.

Here's an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluetsunami/3994129193/sizes/o/

That was shot with the 50/1.4 but the same this applies to even longer lenses too. Before I do anything, I make sure to correctly meter the area that'll be in focus, dial it in in manual then focus lock on the face. After that, commence with shooting different parts of the subject and surrounding (making sure I previsualize the final frame so I'm not shooting wasted space).

Its even easier with static objects (like a car!). Just shoot one row that is just the car (a little in front of it and a little in back, assuming the car is parallel to you) so you give it room to breath in the final frame. Then shoot the area surrounding the car. The cool thing about this technique is that you can get very close and use the resulting thin Depth of Field to your advantage (causing that thin DoF portrait effect you see with human portraits but for something very big like a car).

Oh, I just remembered I actually have one car image with this method...

Link: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3985480293_273b4428a1_o.jpg

50mm lens again. One frame is about the size of the area around the grill and license plate :D

[inthedeck]

So, with the car, you focus on the grill/plate. Now, you start takin' the shots. Where does the focus remain?

Cool process...once it clicks, I suppose. ;)

[BlueTsunami]

So, with the car, you focus on the grill/plate. Now, you start takin' the shots. Where does the focus remain?

Cool process...once it clicks, I suppose. ;)

Oh it is :D

The focus remains on the grill/plate throughout all the frames you're shooting (though swinging the camera around does change the plane of focus a bit but all you really need to worry about is that the area you want to be in focus initially is). The reason why you do not refocus at any point is because you want the Depth of Field (and focus basically) to be absolutely consistent. The reason for this is due to the fact that the final image you are creating is made to look like a single shot with a single focused area (so I could have focused wherever I wanted on the car, as long as I do not refocus the camera... whether I take 7 shots or 50). When it all comes together, it'll look like you took the image as a single frame.

[DonJuanMair]

i am going to give that technique a try!!!

[inthedeck]

Sounds good. I'll try it on our mailbox, first...hehe...and then on a person, some day. ;)

[DonJuanMair]

Its kind of long winded though that's the thing. Would be easier to buy a 135L :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Just a sample.

FYI: This shot is a plain old flat lit, boring normal portrait I always do at the beginning of my portrait sessions just in case a client needs them. Nothing special, just wanted to show the sharpness of the lens. The colours are REALISTIC not over photoshopped (what would be the point). Over photoshopped images suck anyway. This is not to show off my photography skills, its a LENS sample. Plain and simple. Get it?! :rolleyes: