PDA

View Full Version : Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

DaveL
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 10:19
Hi, giving this lens some consideration and
I don't see alot of discussion about it. I see it's
very highly rated in the Miranda reviews.

does anybody have some shots/comments, it
seems very fairly priced used...

pttenn
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 10:30
I have and love this lens, it is fast in even poor light. I have got a lot of shots of birds in flight with it. I just got the 400 prime because I wanted m ore reach but still have the 200 and will keep it.
Karen

Dusty
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 10:42
I love this lens, bought it for my astrophotography work which places a lot of demand on a lens but I also use it for daytime shots.

You won't regret it and you'll be getting what you pay for.

The tiger shot was taken with a 2x tele, hand held.
The astro shot was taken at native 200mm f/2.8 of a comet which split in two.


Dusty

crn3371
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 12:29
It's an excellant lens. Fast, sharp, relatively compact, and inconspicuous. It really comes down to whether you can live with a prime, or want the versatility of a zoom.

timmyb
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 12:54
It's a lens with the wow factor.I don't see it very much due to my own limitations but every so often there it is.
I was happy with this recent effort at 2.8
http://www.pbase.com/image/69351869.jpg

Lester Wareham
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 12:58
Hi, giving this lens some consideration and
I don't see alot of discussion about it. I see it's
very highly rated in the Miranda reviews.

does anybody have some shots/comments, it
seems very fairly priced used...

I also have and love this lens. It is extreamly sharp, takes the EF 1.4X without significant IQ loss and copes very well with the EF 2X. Probably the sharpest lens I have, very nice build quality with an all metal lens barrel.

It is light and compact for its focal length and fstop, and black which makes it less conspicuous.

No IS but it can still work well in low light.

Most people seem to go with the 70-200 zooms in this range, for myself I teamed it with the excellent 100mm f2.8 macro. The 200/2.8 is one of the most overlooked lenses and also one of the best bang for the buck.

You can't really judge sharpness from downsampled web images but here are a couple of shots, both a 20D.

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Wildlife/Even-Toed%20Ungulates/Deer/Wildlife%20Stag%20Calling%20001.jpg

This is about 30% of the frame width

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Birds/General/Woodpeckers%20and%20Wryneck/Wildlife%20Green%20Woodpecker%20Male%20131%20copy. jpg

DaveL
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 13:19
very nice shots Tim and Dusty, thanks for posting.
Dusty, on the tiger shot which brand TC were you
using?

Dave

liza
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 13:51
The 200mm is an exceptional lens. I really like the image quality much better than my 70-200 f/4.

Permagrin
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 13:57
It's a fantastic lens....greak bokeh, fast....I love it (and it's in my husband's kit)...I'd compare it to my 135L for picture quality...I love it and would use more often than I do (except that it's in use)....;)

Cameragirl58
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 14:02
I absolutely love the lens, I bought it originally for concert work because of the focal length and aperture,it's sharp and I find it nicely balanced on my 350D.
It was money well spent :)
Here's a couple of photos taken with it...the dog was taken at 1/125, f2.8, ISO 1600 and the singer at 1/60, f4, ISO 400.

nothin
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 15:23
It's sharp as a tack, light weight (relatively), and the best bang for the buck by far in L glass. If you need it, you can't go wrong with this lens. Love mine!

Dan

ed rader
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 15:36
It's sharp as a tack, light weight (relatively), and the best bang for the buck by far in L glass. If you need it, you can't go wrong with this lens. Love mine!

Dan


i think you would get some argument about that. the 70-200L f4 and 17-40L are far more popular, have excellent IQ and are also inexpensive as far as Ls go.

ed rader

ghms421
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 15:40
i think you would get some argument about that. the 70-200L f4 and 17-40L are far more popular, have excellent IQ and are also inexpensive as far as Ls go.

ed rader
For slightly more you get a sharper lens and f2.8. After trading my sigma 70-200 for 70-200F4L+cash, I'm now considering selling the 70-200 and getting this and an 85f1.8.

GyRob
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 15:43
i think you would get some argument about that. the 70-200L f4 and 17-40L are far more popular, have excellent IQ and are also inexpensive as far as Ls go.

ed rader
i agree both are super lense's but both are f4 .
Rob

ed rader
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 15:46
i agree both are super lense's but both are f4 .
Rob

but both are zooms and therefore more versatile and widely owned.

ed rader

ed rader
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 15:48
For slightly more you get a sharper lens and f2.8. After trading my sigma 70-200 for 70-200F4L+cash, I'm now considering selling the 70-200 and getting this and an 85f1.8.

you are also giving up the versatility of a zoom lens. that may be okay for you but i'll bet most people wouldn't make that swap.

i don't argue that the 200 f2.8 is a great lens but i don't agree that it "the buck by far in L glass".

ed rader

GyRob
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 15:51
but both are zooms and therefore more versatile and widely owned.

ed rader
true but the op is asking about a f2.8 prime.
Rob.

Dusty
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 16:24
very nice shots Tim and Dusty, thanks for posting.
Dusty, on the tiger shot which brand TC were you
using?

Dave
Thanks, I was using the Canon 2x tele.

ed rader
12th of November 2006 (Sun), 16:29
true but the op is asking about a f2.8 prime.
Rob.

in that context i would have to agree :D .

ed rader

DaveL
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 06:53
Thanks for the comments everyone... a couple
reasons why I was looking at this one... First I'd
use it for light sports duty and would be covering
some late games. secondly, I was so happy with the
clarity and speed of my 85 1.8 that I'm very curious
to try another prime... I'm happy with the 120-300
but if I can get a little more crispness, AF speed and
slightly more portability, I think it would help my shooting...
The price also seems fair...

Dave

cwphoto
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 08:20
Dollars and size/weight aside, I don't see the attraction with the fixed 200 when the 70-200 zoom is so good and just as fast. :confused:

Photorebel
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 08:59
I have the 200 f/2.8L, that I used for football this year. Started out with 70-200 f/2.8L, but went to the 200. Result, less overall number of shots, but more "keepers".
The 200 is sharp, light, faster and more accurate AF.
Great lens!

Photorebel
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:01
Dollars and size/weight aside, I don't see the attraction with the fixed 200 when the 70-200 zoom is so good and just as fast. :confused:

I had both. I say had, because I sold the 70-200 f/2.8. For me, I like the lighter weight of the 200, the faster AF. I was using it to shoot football. However, I really started missing that 70-200 when I was trying to get endzone shots.

Lester Wareham
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:39
Dollars and size/weight aside, I don't see the attraction with the fixed 200 when the 70-200 zoom is so good and just as fast. :confused:

Smaller, half the wieght, 1/3 the price and black.;)

JaGWiRE
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:42
Smaller, half the wieght, 1/3 the price and black.;)

Yup, exact reasons why I was interested in it before. I have decided though a 135L with 1.4x and 300 F/4L will do for me and cover the same focal lengths approximately.

cwphoto
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:44
Smaller, half the wieght, 1/3 the price and black.;)

"dollars and size/weight aside"...

Lester Wareham
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:47
"dollars and size/weight aside"...

You worgot the colour. :)

OK there are times you need zooms and times you don't. When you don't the prime is in many ways a better technical solution.

cwphoto
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:48
You worgot the colour. :)

Yeah I know - but not the price, size, or weight. :p

I just see those other advantages you list of the non-zoom as being fairly minor, all things considered.

DaveL
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:56
I have the 200 f/2.8L, that I used for football this year. Started out with 70-200 f/2.8L, but went to the 200. Result, less overall number of shots, but more "keepers".
The 200 is sharp, light, faster and more accurate AF.
Great lens!



very interesting comment photo rebel. Last year I briefly
shots sports using the 70-200 f/2.8 and when I switched to
the 300 f/4L IS I oddly found that I had a higher percentage
of keepers.

but it's good discussion that everyone is bringing up. Seeing
what some have done with the 70-200, I'm wondering if it was
technique or my copy...

cwphoto
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 09:59
very interesting comment photo rebel. Last year I briefly
shots sports using the 70-200 f/2.8 and when I switched to
the 300 f/4L IS I oddly found that I had a higher percentage
of keepers.

but it's good discussion that everyone is bringing up. Seeing
what some have done with the 70-200, I'm wondering if it was
technique or my copy...

Funny, I ditched my 300 f/4 IS for the same reason to favour the 70-200 f/2.8 IS!

We probably just both had **** copies of each.

Photorebel
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 12:04
very interesting comment photo rebel. Last year I briefly
shots sports using the 70-200 f/2.8 and when I switched to
the 300 f/4L IS I oddly found that I had a higher percentage
of keepers.

but it's good discussion that everyone is bringing up. Seeing
what some have done with the 70-200, I'm wondering if it was
technique or my copy...

Frankly, I think it had more to do with technique in my case. I would be too busy zooming, and miss a shot. Or zoom..and not refocus in time. I also got several soft shots, with the 70-200. I would have thought it was the lens, but I also got some very sharp shots too. Same lens, same camera. I really believe it was my lack of technique with the 70-200. (non IS)
I didn't mean to imply the 200 is a far better lens. The 200 is a better lens _for me_, but not necessarily everyone else. I just tried to find the tool I could work with and get results, which is what I did.
I also got much better shots with the 300 f/4L in daytime softball, but not Friday night football.

malla1962
13th of November 2006 (Mon), 14:12
I have just got this lens sice losing my 70-200f2.8Lis and find it a very good lens along side my 135f2,I use primes most of the time now unless doing landscapes,took these few shots on a very bad day when it was blowing a gale,all hand held at f2.8.http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/malla1962/MO2Q4559.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/malla1962/MO2Q4544.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/malla1962/MO2Q4543.jpg

Psychic1
14th of November 2006 (Tue), 22:34
I do believe it is faster and sharper than my 135L.
http://i.pbase.com/g6/37/705637/2/81820515.XuXmWyw8.jpg

SolPics
14th of November 2006 (Tue), 23:33
It's a very nice lens, and it's black so less noticeable.

jackman1
14th of November 2006 (Tue), 23:59
I love its sharpness+speed ! I team it w/a 24-105 LIs and I'm basically covered from 24-200. Its light but again,very sharp.

sonnyc
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 00:57
Psychic1, that's a nice pic. Great timing.

Lester Wareham
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 04:28
I do believe it is faster and sharper than my 135L.


From all accounts the 135/2 and 200/2.8 have very similar sharpness.

calicokat
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 05:16
I highly recommend the 200 F/2.8L. I had one for a time, but sold it to fund other lenses as I have a 70-200 F/2.8L IS. But for the price, its hard to beat, great lens

StealthLude
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 05:28
Great lens,

but i rather buy a zoom 70-200, and get the 135L as my prime.

I Simonius
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 08:12
Hi, giving this lens some consideration and
I don't see alot of discussion about it. I see it's
very highly rated in the Miranda reviews.

does anybody have some shots/comments, it
seems very fairly priced used...

I'd looked at this lens in the past and although it looks great its only advantage over the new 70-200 f4IS would be with fast moving subjects i.e sports

Tandem
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 08:13
I have no doubt that it is an excellent lens but since I already own a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 135 f/2 + 1.4x it's very low on my wish list. Although I'm sure the 200 f/2.8 is a wee bit better in IQ than either of the above two options.

It's the f/2.8 part that keeps me from owning this lens. Now if Canon would re-release the 200 f/1.8 or come out with a 200 f/2, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

JaGWiRE
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 09:30
I have no doubt that it is an excellent lens but since I already own a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 135 f/2 + 1.4x it's very low on my wish list. Although I'm sure the 200 f/2.8 is a wee bit better in IQ than either of the above two options.

It's the f/2.8 part that keeps me from owning this lens. Now if Canon would re-release the 200 f/1.8 or come out with a 200 f/2, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

So you actually think the 135L + 1.4x is a little bit less sharp (noticable in photos per say) then the 200 f2.8L?

foghorn
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 11:25
Yeah I know - but not the price, size, or weight. :p

I just see those other advantages you list of the non-zoom as being fairly minor, all things considered.
AF and IQ. What else are you looking for in a lens?
So now you got size/weight/AF speed/IQ, and you still don't get why some people buy the prime?

malla1962
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 11:30
I do believe it is faster and sharper than my 135L.
http://ct.pbase.com/g3/37/705637/2/66906225.EFn8dklR.jpgI have both and theres nothing in it realy,I would say the 135 has the edge on sharpness but AF is a lot faster on the 135:D.

Wayne MG
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 11:40
I like my EF 200/2.8 a lot. Lately I've been tempted to sell it in exchange for a 70-200/2.8 IS as I might shoot some weddings though. My favourite 200/2.8 prime features are (1) black colour, (2) light weight, (3) 72mm filter size for sharing with my EF 135/2.0. Example shots from my EF 200/2.8:

http://www.pbase.com/marrio/image/58415372

http://www.pbase.com/marrio/image/67624589

JaGWiRE
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 11:47
I like my EF 200/2.8 a lot. Lately I've been tempted to sell it in exchange for a 70-200/2.8 IS as I might shoot some weddings though. My favourite 200/2.8 prime features are (1) black colour, (2) light weight, (3) 72mm filter size for sharing with my EF 135/2.0. Example shots from my EF 200/2.8:

http://www.pbase.com/marrio/image/58415372

http://www.pbase.com/marrio/image/67624589
Awesome color contrast in both photos!

rklepper
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 11:47
This is a great lens. Yes, it is one of the great values in the Canon lens lineup. I have owned all of the 70-200 zooms (Except the new f/4 IS version, but I cannot imagine that the addition fo IS would increase IQ on a mediocre lens), and yes they are more "convenient" which is why more people own them. If it is convenience you want, then get the zoom. If it is better IQ you want, then get the 200.

Wayne MG
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 11:55
Awesome color contrast in both photos!

Thanks, glad you like the shots.

I might add that this lens is less prone to flare when pointed straight at the sun, compared to its zoom counterparts which have more internal lens elements. Something else to consider.

JaGWiRE
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 12:42
This is a great lens. Yes, it is one of the great values in the Canon lens lineup. I have owned all of the 70-200 zooms (Except the new f/4 IS version, but I cannot imagine that the addition fo IS would increase IQ on a mediocre lens), and yes they are more "convenient" which is why more people own them. If it is convenience you want, then get the zoom. If it is better IQ you want, then get the 200.
I think primes can be more convenient at times, if your shooting at a certain focal length and don't want to carry all that weight around that a zoom might account for (please note this really only applies for primes under 300mm, at 300mm and after their zoom counterparts are close in weight), and want to stay as compact as possible, then I think a prime is more convenient.

Lester Wareham
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 13:26
Thanks, glad you like the shots.

I might add that this lens is less prone to flare when pointed straight at the sun, compared to its zoom counterparts which have more internal lens elements. Something else to consider.

Hi Wayne, you managed to get the 200/2.8L II to flare :shock:, I have not been able to provoke that at all, even with the sun and other stong light sorces in the frame, one of the better controlled lenses in my experience.

Lester Wareham
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 13:28
I think primes can be more convenient at times, if your shooting at a certain focal length and don't want to carry all that weight around that a zoom might account for (please note this really only applies for primes under 300mm, at 300mm and after their zoom counterparts are close in weight), and want to stay as compact as possible, then I think a prime is more convenient.

This is very much by feeling also.

Wayne MG
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 13:55
Hi Wayne, you managed to get the 200/2.8L II to flare :shock:, I have not been able to provoke that at all, even with the sun and other stong light sorces in the frame, one of the better controlled lenses in my experience.

Hello Lester. Well, I have not been able to provoke flaring either to be honest. But I just wanted to make the point that primes exhibit flare than zooms in direct sunlight.

Now that you mention the Mark II designation, I will also add that the optics are identical to the Mark I version. The only thing Canon changed was the lens hood, making it detachable on the newer one. So if anyone is shopping around for this fantastic lens, there are chances to get the same great performance for a bit less cash.:idea:

BTW, here's one of the reviews that convinced me to buy this lens in the first place. Heck, I may never sell it now: http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef200usm.htm

JaGWiRE
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 14:51
This is very much by feeling also.

It varies by person to person I guess. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS because I felt it was too heavy of a lens to lug around, especially for it's focal length. I think the 300 F/4L is a little bit lighter, but with that lens it'de probably be on my monopod more then in my hands.

NordieBoy
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 15:15
I've got a 200 2.8 MK I here but it's just lost autofocus :(

sonnyc
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 15:17
I think the 300 F/4L is a little bit lighter, but with that lens it'de probably be on my monopod more then in my hands.


I think you'll be surprise of how light the 300 f4 is :)

I handheld it through a couple of football games without issues.

Lester Wareham
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 17:08
Hello Lester. Well, I have not been able to provoke flaring either to be honest. But I just wanted to make the point that primes exhibit flare than zooms in direct sunlight.

Now that you mention the Mark II designation, I will also add that the optics are identical to the Mark I version. The only thing Canon changed was the lens hood, making it detachable on the newer one. So if anyone is shopping around for this fantastic lens, there are chances to get the same great performance for a bit less cash.:idea:

BTW, here's one of the reviews that convinced me to buy this lens in the first place. Heck, I may never sell it now: http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef200usm.htm

Well the thing is the normal accepted wisdom is primes have less flare than zooms for a given max fstop (in fact one of the main plus points for primes), so I was surprised to hear your finding.

Lester Wareham
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 17:10
It varies by person to person I guess. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS because I felt it was too heavy of a lens to lug around, especially for it's focal length. I think the 300 F/4L is a little bit lighter, but with that lens it'de probably be on my monopod more then in my hands.

Yes me also, the 300 is about 2/3rds the weight of the f2.8 zoom. I can handhold that fine but for any lentgh of time you need a monopod. Its OK if you raise the lens up take a few shots and rest - its when you have to hold on target for 10mins etc.

The 70-200 f4 IS changes the dynamics a bit but f2.8 no IS can be better in some cases.

Tandem
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 19:46
So you actually think the 135L + 1.4x is a little bit less sharp (noticable in photos per say) then the 200 f2.8L?
Since I haven't used a 200 f/2.8 I can only offer my opinion which isn't worth a whole lot in this case. Discounting the focal lenth I think you'd have to be a pixel peeper to notice the difference. I have been very happy with the 135+1.4 combination whenever I've used it. YMMV.

JaGWiRE
15th of November 2006 (Wed), 20:55
Since I haven't used a 200 f/2.8 I can only offer my opinion which isn't worth a whole lot in this case. Discounting the focal lenth I think you'd have to be a pixel peeper to notice the difference. I have been very happy with the 135+1.4 combination whenever I've used it. YMMV.
Good to hear. The 135L and 300L combo sounds mighty good to me :D.

In2Photos
17th of November 2006 (Fri), 22:25
I am going to use this thread for the lens archive. Please share your shots here.

BradT0517
17th of November 2006 (Fri), 22:50
If I had the money and already bought my new comp and a 70-200 f4 this would be my next lens

Wayne MG
18th of November 2006 (Sat), 00:52
Thanks Mike, here's another one of my shots with this great EF 200/2.8 lens (wide open):

http://www.mbpgalleries.com/albums/userpics/20060825_3011_200s.jpg

My earlier ones:

http://ct.pbase.com/o5/70/618470/1/67624589.C5NJDaYc.20060902_312572s.jpg

http://k43.pbase.com/o4/70/618470/1/58415372.IMG_0527CopperheadSnakev2.jpg

Tony-S
23rd of November 2006 (Thu), 16:03
This shot at f/4.

weka2000
23rd of November 2006 (Thu), 16:16
So how many use a 2xTC with it. What are the results like. I have hada play with 400F5.6 and thats a nice lens.

Lester Wareham
23rd of November 2006 (Thu), 17:37
So how many use a 2xTC with it. What are the results like. I have hada play with 400F5.6 and thats a nice lens.

Its still quite sharp with the 2X, does not even notice the 1.4X. Of course the AF slows up.

The 400/5.6 will be sharper and have better AF however.

gardengirl13
30th of November 2006 (Thu), 13:19
Haven't tried it with a TC yet, but even cropped it looks good!

http://gardengirl13.zoto.com/img/45/138925a903881fd576ab80e1cc65b602-.jpg

This one is at 3200ISO no cropping

http://gardengirl13.zoto.com/img/45/c7af92f0ae17ed0fa4a24662389cebed-.jpg

and this one

http://gardengirl13.zoto.com/img/45/a1f2d177bc9b3c946f127539f62b5d47-.jpg

Bill Ng
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 11:15
Dollars and size/weight aside, I don't see the attraction with the fixed 200 when the 70-200 zoom is so good and just as fast. :confused:

3 words ...

Double
The
Price

Bill

gardengirl13
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 11:34
Not just the price some of us prefer primes

PetKal
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 12:18
Lighter, sharper, cheaper and less "intrusive" lens than the 7-200 f/2.8 zooms.
Excellent handling characteristics.....very good for bird-inflight shots and similar fast action photography.

In overall performance and build very close to the 135L.
In terms of the value/$, the only other Canon L lenses that are comparable are 7-200 f/4 and 17-40.

This is an unprocessed JPG, straight out of camera.

sonnyc
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 14:39
PetKal, You got very close to him... looks like he's your pet :)

PetKal
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 14:40
PetKal, You got very close to him... looks like he's your pet :)
About 8 ft, if I remember right.;)
Now, this is close (different lens though.....180L):

joe445
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 15:19
After reading and seeing about this lens it's at the top of my list. Using the 85 f/1.8 and the 300 f/2.8 I have a different view about primes. I really want to get the 200 f2.8 now. Nice shots everybody!

sonnyc
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 16:09
About 8 ft, if I remember right.;)
Now, this is close (different lens though.....180L):


You cheated... that's a cropped. :D

Or a staged pet hahaha.

PetKal
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 17:14
You cheated... that's a cropped. :D

Or a staged pet hahaha.


No crop, just intrepid approach to a deadly treeshark.

jedwards
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 17:40
I had one and recently sold it to get a 70-200 zoom - I am already thinking about getting another 200L. I like the zoom, but the colors and sharpness of the 200L are hard to beat at the price.

cwphoto
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 18:08
Lighter, sharper, cheaper and less "intrusive" lens than the 7-200 f/2.8 zooms.
Excellent handling characteristics.....very good for bird-inflight shots and similar fast action photography.

In overall performance and build very close to the 135L.
In terms of the value/$, the only other Canon L lenses that are comparable are 7-200 f/4 and 17-40.

This is an unprocessed JPG, straight out of camera.

I'm sure it's all those things, but if you can afford the money for the 70-200 IS you get something that is almost as sharp, more versatile, and has IS.

For those reasons alone it would probably be the last Canon L lens I would purchase. When I think non-zoom, I look for lens speed and sharpness as the driving forces - the 200/2.8 (to me) doesn't offer enough in either of those departments to occupy valuable real estate in the bag which could otherwise be occupied with a different lens with a much higher value proposition (say a 135/2 or 180/3.5 Macro).

The 200/1.8 would be a different story altogether. :cool: Peace to all.

PetKal
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 18:59
I'm sure it's all those things, but if you can afford the money for the 70-200 IS you get something that is almost as sharp, more versatile, and has IS.

For those reasons alone it would probably be the last Canon L lens I would purchase. When I think non-zoom, I look for lens speed and sharpness as the driving forces - the 200/2.8 (to me) doesn't offer enough in either of those departments to occupy valuable real estate in the bag which could otherwise be occupied with a different lens with a much higher value proposition (say a 135/2 or 180/3.5 Macro).

The 200/1.8 would be a different story altogether. :cool: Peace to all.

Hello, anybody home ? :rolleyes: Comparing those two 200's is like looking at the Toyota Matrix vs. the Hummer.

cwphoto
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 21:04
Hello, anybody home ? :rolleyes: Comparing those two 200's is like looking at the Toyota Matrix vs. the Hummer.

Sure, but the point is it offers a greater value proposition - because it has something that the 70-200 does not (lens speed).

Price, size, and minor image quality aside - the 200/2.8 doesn't really offer anything.

PetKal
5th of December 2006 (Tue), 21:47
Sure, but the point is it offers a greater value proposition - because it has something that the 70-200 does not (lens speed).

Price, size, and minor image quality aside - the 200/2.8 doesn't really offer anything.
CW....that seems like a suitable argument to make on that other forum......for the obscenely over-geared and sadly under-shot.;) :lol:
Besides, you do not list any of those two in your gear....so what are we discussing here ?

cwphoto
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 00:14
Besides, you do not list any of those two in your gear....so what are we discussing here ?

I didn't know ownership of the items was a pre-requisite to discussing the merits of them, sorry. :rolleyes: ;)

However a 200/1.8 comes to visit every so often - I think it likes the company:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17565&stc=1&d=1164375073

Petteri
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 01:29
I love my 200/2.8. It's great size, fast focusing and great IQ. That's all i want for a lens.

joe445
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 13:20
I just ordered this lens at buydig $619 -$35 rebate=$584 No shipping No tax. After reading great things about this lens I can't wait to see if its as good as everyone talks about. I'm sure it will be!

crispypie
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 14:26
Aaaaaaaaaaarrggggghhhhhh, I had just made my mind up to get the 70-200 f4, now I have to start all over again!!!!!

CW - What an amazing collection of gear, (still wiping the drool of my chin), but..............couldnt you have taken a nicer picture of it all? ;)
(sorry, couldnt resist)

Stan43
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 14:39
I will be investing, again, before the 1/13 rebate date . 200 2.8L,135L,5D. I will be selling my 70-200 2.8IS to partially fund the purchase. I've caught "prime fever". Makes you do a little thinking and walking to make a picture.

PetKal
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 14:55
I will be investing, again, before the 1/13 rebate date . 200 2.8L,135L,5D. I will be selling my 70-200 2.8IS to partially fund the purchase. I've caught "prime fever". Makes you do a little thinking and walking to make a picture.

Two excellent choices......they are amongst the sharpest Canon lenses, with an exemplary all around IQ. I am sure you'll have a blast with them !;)

Lester Wareham
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 15:17
I just ordered this lens at buydig $619 -$35 rebate=$584 No shipping No tax. After reading great things about this lens I can't wait to see if its as good as everyone talks about. I'm sure it will be!

You will love it, it IS well made and IS very sharp. Every time I pick this lens up I am amazed how small and light it seems compared to my 300 f4L IS, the 200/2.8 is a pleasure to use.

joe445
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 15:41
Les
Are any of your website photos taken with your 200mm? That a nice site you have there!

cwphoto
6th of December 2006 (Wed), 19:57
Aaaaaaaaaaarrggggghhhhhh, I had just made my mind up to get the 70-200 f4, now I have to start all over again!!!!!

CW - What an amazing collection of gear, (still wiping the drool of my chin), but..............couldnt you have taken a nicer picture of it all? ;)
(sorry, couldnt resist)

Yeah guilty as charged. :oops:

I set this all up and then went. "hey, now I don't have a camera to take the pic!"

So out came the MVX40i Camcorder... :o :rolleyes:

Lester Wareham
7th of December 2006 (Thu), 05:44
Les
Are any of your website photos taken with your 200mm? That a nice site you have there!

Hi Joe,

Thanks. Yes should be a few. If you click the little camera icon you get some EXIF info.

(BTW: No offence but Lester not Les ;) )

This whole sequence was monopod and 200/2.8 very dull misty day http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Gallery/Themes/Deer_in_the_Mist/index.html

This was at dawn through the window (handheld) very poor light
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Wildlife/Wildlife%20Garden%20Fox%2046.jpg

This is about 33% crop of the frame (didn't have TCs at that time)
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Wildlife/Birds/Wildlife%20Green%20Woodpecker%20Male%20131%20copy. jpg

And another couple
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Landscape/Landscape%20Deer%20under%20Trees%20001.jpg

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Wildlife/Deer/Wildlife%20Stag%20Calling%20001.jpg

joe445
7th of December 2006 (Thu), 07:27
Sorry about that Lester! Thanks for your help. I like those icons, very nice effect and useful

Lester Wareham
7th of December 2006 (Thu), 12:39
Sorry about that Lester! Thanks for your help. I like those icons, very nice effect and useful

No worries now.

The ICON and the Gallary are generated by JAlbum (Not the best but simple), I kind of assumed it was obvious - I'll add a note about the Icons.

khamsiba
7th of December 2006 (Thu), 12:54
Love this lens .....

Tony-S
13th of December 2006 (Wed), 14:32
From the Kansas State-Colorado State game.

joe445
13th of December 2006 (Wed), 16:08
I got my 200mm yesterday, boring examples but here's my 1st shot. Another happy customer- IQ looks on par with other samples I've seen. My friend does a heck of a job decorating his mailbox for the holidays, wouldn't you agree?
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/8111/boxto6.jpg

cropped
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6386/box1od7.jpg

thekid24
5th of January 2007 (Fri), 00:46
I didn't know ownership of the items was a pre-requisite to discussing the merits of them, sorry. :rolleyes: ;)

However a 200/1.8 comes to visit every so often - I think it likes the company:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17565&stc=1&d=1164375073

Wow thats is alot or red rings.Man Id love to have some of those rings.Nice collection.

JHH Photgraphy
5th of January 2007 (Fri), 05:30
ok, I am drooling after the collection of lenses pic.

::Lisa::
24th of January 2007 (Wed), 12:23
cropped
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6386/box1od7.jpgThat is sharp for a crop. I'm thinking this might be added to my gear as my first L lens.

Tony-S
3rd of February 2007 (Sat), 11:11
Here's a shot with the Sigma 2x DG TC attached (f/11, ISO 400). 100% crop follows.

rathke
3rd of February 2007 (Sat), 19:47
I belive this is one of the best kept secrets of the Canon lens line-up. I love the sharpness and boken that it delivers. Price, size, cost and color are all benefits. This capture was with the 1.4 TC ll attached. ISO200, 1/800, and wide open at f4. Very narrow DOF here.

rklepper
3rd of February 2007 (Sat), 20:56
200 f.2.8 w/ 1.4X TC

rklepper
3rd of February 2007 (Sat), 21:04
And the lens seems to have fairly nice bokeh.

Honeybee
3rd of April 2007 (Tue), 10:56
I didn't know ownership of the items was a pre-requisite to discussing the merits of them, sorry. :rolleyes: ;)

However a 200/1.8 comes to visit every so often - I think it likes the company:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17565&stc=1&d=1164375073

cwphoto,

Will you marry me so I can use your lenses? ;)

I don't care if you're already married, I won't be around much - just pick up and drop off!

Honeybee

P.S. I know this is an old post; just browsing today.

Stan43
3rd of April 2007 (Tue), 12:56
Just got from spring break. Loved the 200 2.8. Size , colors, IQ . You can shoot low key.
Enjoyed the scenery.

grimreaper
8th of May 2007 (Tue), 13:09
looks like a great lens , any more pics anyone?

Lani Kai
10th of May 2007 (Thu), 05:34
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/7060/img3076ed6.jpg

jojet
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 11:53
Wonderful lens,

Shot in beijing, f 3.2



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/jojet/IMG_2467.jpg


john

jojet
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 11:55
And another one, f2.8


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/jojet/IMG_2536.jpg

gardengirl13
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 15:30
OK my last hosting site is now charging and I won't pay, so I went with a different free site. I still love this lens. I have tried one of the 70-200 zooms and thought it was ok. I liked the ability to get closer, but never took it off 200 so I didn't buy it. The IQ is slightly better on my 200 and the AF is MUCH better. Trying to track birds with the zoom was very difficult.

with 1.4TC cropped

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/fullmoonwith200.jpg


with 1.4TC no crop

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/pinksbasket.jpg


with 1.4TC cropped

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/ospraycloseupwithfish-1.jpg


with 1.4TC not cropped

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/floweringtree2002.jpg

gardengirl13
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 15:37
The view from my driveway

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/roundtop.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/sparrow.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/oreoleandorange.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/essexgire.jpg

without the TC

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/crocuscloseup2.jpg

jojet
14th of May 2007 (Mon), 11:27
Tracking birds with this lens isn't hard but most of the times the reach is way to short.

I was lucky with this one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/jojet/TexelDeKrimIMG_2868.jpg



john

Laramie
17th of May 2007 (Thu), 00:52
No sharpening, only adjusted white-balance. Shot not cropped well because he kept wanting to come to me and wouldn't stay far away. I'd say about 30 feet away.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/tylerpebley/12.jpg

grimreaper
17th of May 2007 (Thu), 21:12
The view from my driveway

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/roundtop.jpg







Wish I had this view from my drive.

Tony-S
14th of June 2007 (Thu), 00:35
Man, I just love this lens. These were taken today of artisans on Florida Ave in Buenos Aires. It's a bit too crowded of a city for my tastes, but full of interesting and polite people. And the best steaks I have ever had.

grimreaper
18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:12
great make - up :lol:

Tony-S
7th of July 2007 (Sat), 02:13
Another from Buenos Aires - street musicians.

malla1962
7th of July 2007 (Sat), 03:18
Shot @ f2.8 full size and 100% crop.

tom s
9th of July 2007 (Mon), 19:37
very nice ;)
how is this lens in low light, can you handhold it steadily ?

Needsnow
9th of July 2007 (Mon), 19:49
Yes, you can handhold this lens pretty easily. I took this picture last week in Alaska at 11:15 at night! I really didn't want to push my ISO past 400 so I had to settle for 1/80 at F 2.8 - all in a split second, since these young ones didn't stay around too long. The best recommendation I can give you is that when you are shooting below 1/250, just put the camera on continuous shoot and shoot 3 or more shots. Usually, I can get one out of the series just perfect! This is by far my favorite lens.

canadianbacon52
19th of July 2007 (Thu), 10:40
Shot @ f2.8 full size and 100% crop.

Wow, that's crazy...

swampler
9th of August 2007 (Thu), 22:54
I'll add a couple from the 200 f/2.8L I just got today. Both images at f/2.8 and ISO 1600. Taken with 30D.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1286/1066939174_08f899e3f4_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1348/1066073749_acf65f5355_o.jpg

tom s
10th of August 2007 (Fri), 17:20
very nice - I like the 2nd one :)

tcat
10th of August 2007 (Fri), 18:19
Wow! I have this lens and didn't realize it was so nice! I also have the 70-300-IS which I tend to use, and the 200 just sits collecting dust (not on the inside!). I've been shooting with the 200 a bit lately with the Kenko 1.4x... I forgot how nice the bokeh is.

canadianbacon52
11th of August 2007 (Sat), 00:50
I got this lens a week ago or so, it is just unbelievably sharp. This was shot wide open, 1/500 ISO 100. Second picture is a 100% crop of the first. There is a bit of compression in the crop to get the picture under 100k =(

Tosh-san
11th of August 2007 (Sat), 11:28
I recently switched over from Nikon where the 180 2.8 was a favorite. I even got the older version of the Canon 200 2.8 with the pull-out hood to emulate the 180 design. From what I've seen, the 200 2.8 is at least the 180's equal in image quality and far surpasses it in AF speed. So far, I've used it for a few casual portraits.

http://GTIkeda.smugmug.com/photos/178838911-O.jpg
MkIII, ISO 1000, 1/400 at 3.2

http://GTIkeda.smugmug.com/photos/156412958-O.jpg
XTi, ISO 200, 1/1000 at 2.8

tom s
11th of August 2007 (Sat), 19:11
this portait is amazing :)
sharp and lovely bokeh

Tosh-san
11th of August 2007 (Sat), 19:40
Thanks, Tom.
I'm very impressed by the 200 2.8.

skim133
11th of August 2007 (Sat), 21:28
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s83/skim133/IMG_4525.jpg
handheld 1/800s f/3.5
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s83/skim133/IMG_4560.jpg
handheld 1/80s f/3.5

great lens, sharp, fast and quick autofocus, cant go wrong

PetKal
11th of August 2007 (Sat), 21:33
Highly recommended. Good for many types of photography: portrait/candids, nature/wildlife/ BIF and architectural details.
These are unprocessed JPGs out of camera.

BiPolarBear
11th of August 2007 (Sat), 22:50
Not up to par with Petkal's lillies, but just for fun here's a lily shot with the 200L + 2X Kenko TC at f/5.6. (why i was shooting a flower with a 200 +2X TC i have no idea... it's not like you can't sneak up on them)
When i use my Canon 1.4X TC on this lens, i can barely tell the difference in IQ.

The balloon photo is just the bare lens at f/2.8.....it can be pretty sharp wide open.
At about $650 i think it's an amazing deal. Not to mention it's light and (black) stealthy.
Greg

silvex
12th of August 2007 (Sun), 00:01
I recently switched over from Nikon where the 180 2.8 was a favorite. I even got the older version of the Canon 200 2.8 with the pull-out hood to emulate the 180 design. From what I've seen, the 200 2.8 is at least the 180's equal in image quality and far surpasses it in AF speed. So far, I've used it for a few casual portraits.


MkIII, ISO 1000, 1/400 at 3.2

http://GTIkeda.smugmug.com/photos/156412958-O.jpg
XTi, ISO 200, 1/1000 at 2.8

That portrait is beyond belief! Amazing!

PetKal
12th of August 2007 (Sun), 00:07
Also, an excellent BIF lens, assuming the 200mm FL is sufficient.
Unprocessed JPG crops.

CountryBoy
12th of August 2007 (Sun), 00:54
Looks like a fine lens. I wonder how it would do for sports. Mainly youth baseball and soccer. I think it would fit nicely with my 2 zooms.

I like the fact it is light,fast and seems to have great IQ.

grimreaper
21st of August 2007 (Tue), 21:17
I recently switched over from Nikon where the 180 2.8 was a favorite. I even got the older version of the Canon 200 2.8 with the pull-out hood to emulate the 180 design. From what I've seen, the 200 2.8 is at least the 180's equal in image quality and far surpasses it in AF speed. So far, I've used it for a few casual portraits.

http://GTIkeda.smugmug.com/photos/178838911-O.jpg
MkIII, ISO 1000, 1/400 at 3.2

http://GTIkeda.smugmug.com/photos/156412958-O.jpg
XTi, ISO 200, 1/1000 at 2.8



both great pics them , anymore?:D

tom s
23rd of August 2007 (Thu), 11:36
please more pics :)

Liam:
1st of November 2007 (Thu), 12:39
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f217/linus4/Hockey.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f217/linus4/redarrows-1.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f217/linus4/Football.jpg

With a 2x teleconverter
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f217/linus4/WS4.jpg


Great lens, can be used for everything, sport, wildlife, people, landscape.....

rathke
1st of November 2007 (Thu), 15:28
A couple shot opening day this year with the 1.4 TC

bob_r
15th of November 2007 (Thu), 18:19
I just bought mine (used) and even though I've only taken a few shots with it, I think I'm going to like it....a lot!

Bob R

(I added a few pics since I've had a chance to use it now. All shots taken with a 30D)
1/100s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso640
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/90282306.jpg

1/800s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso400
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/89117791.jpg

1/1600s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso400
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/89117779.jpg

1/1600s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso200
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/90659730.jpg

1/2000s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso400
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/89192411.jpg

totalphoto
19th of November 2007 (Mon), 20:31
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1243/1450027149_ef6951c90e.jpg

Gary W. Graley
19th of November 2007 (Mon), 22:21
just to add to the photos and also to say, you'll love the lens if you need that FL

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/GaryWGraley/EOS%2020D/200L/first200shot.jpg

a tight framed portrait, quickly done as he came by my desk, actually one of the first
shots taken with that lens, inside with low light, worked fine ;)
G2

totalphoto
20th of November 2007 (Tue), 00:23
NICE! SHARP!!!

daleftw
25th of November 2007 (Sun), 08:52
I think I just decided on my next lens! (Was looking at the 70-200)

p360
25th of November 2007 (Sun), 14:18
This was my first prime. Awesome lens..!! It's SHARP - corner to corner. And the bokeh is creamy. I've got some very good shots of my two boys with this lens.

You will love this lens. I assure you.

Liam:
25th of November 2007 (Sun), 14:22
I thought I would add this one as it really shows of the lens. (colour, bokeh, sharpness...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f217/linus4/IMG_3970copy.png

Unity Gain
27th of November 2007 (Tue), 06:17
I thought I would add this one as it really shows of the lens. (colour, bokeh, sharpness...



NICE SHOT!

bob_r
9th of January 2008 (Wed), 16:59
The rain let up so I finally took mine to the zoo today. Here's a shot of a big, lazy cat taken through a fence.

Bob R

30D - 1/2500s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso100
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/91452772.jpg

tom s
20th of January 2008 (Sun), 17:16
Nice pic of a ''cat''. :)

bob_r
20th of January 2008 (Sun), 19:36
Nice pic of a ''cat''. :)

Thanks, Tom. Here are a couple of other "cat" shots taken with the 200L

30D - 1/640s f/3.5 at 200.0mm iso200
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/91601194.jpg

30D - 1/200s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso100
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/91483938.jpg

Bob R

Styria
26th of January 2008 (Sat), 21:46
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h215/styria/Other%20Pictures/IMG_5087.jpg

f/2.8, 1/30. Balanced on my knee, but I have no idea how it froze her movement too. I was still learning to just switch to manual when using a flash, for that purpose. ;)

P1X4R
1st of February 2008 (Fri), 11:13
Iceman!

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

TheHoff
2nd of February 2008 (Sat), 13:21
1 frustrated dog + 1 large stick:
http://i26.tinypic.com/ml7fvl.jpg

Horses in the city to test 2.8 sharpness:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2m5j9d1.jpg

Handheld ISO 400, 1/200, 2.8, so not the best test, but this is no PP:
http://i29.tinypic.com/2djtmzb.jpg