200 2.8L.....any good reviews/success stories???

[Thunderbird33]

Hi all,

I'm lacking in the 200 2.8 range, and while undoubtedly I would like the 70-200 2.8 IS, it is likely not an option until next year.

While I would like to stick to using my 24-70L, if I do get "puched to the back", I'd like the 200 2.8 range to reach up to the front.

At 1/3 of the price, what has real life experience been like with the 200L 2.8??? I have a top notch tripod, so no worries there...

Just exploring options....

PS....I can't rent here in Eastern Canada......I would if I could!

[picturecrazy]

I don't often use the 200mm end. I find I use the 130-160 range a lot on a 30D. I personally don't think I'd do so well with a 200mm prime. But hey, it might work for you.

[Thunderbird33]

Hmmm...perhaps the EF 135mm f/2.0L USM is a better option......

[picturecrazy]

With one extra stop? yeah, I think I would go for that personally. You're gonna need to shoot at 1/160 with that lens. With IS, I'm used to shooting at 1/25.

[RobKirkwood]

The Canon 200 f2.8L is a superb lens, and great value for money - we used to have one. But ultimately for us it was too long to be much use on the crop cameras we had at the time, so we sold it.

Rob

[andrewmr]

Hmmm...perhaps the EF 135mm f/2.0L USM is a better option......

That's what I was going to suggest.....

[Thunderbird33]

With one extra stop? yeah, I think I would go for that personally. You're gonna need to shoot at 1/160 with that lens. With IS, I'm used to shooting at 1/25.


Sheesh....1/25.........that is sweet....I wish I wasn't in a smallish city, I'd like to rent for a weekend......cameracanada offers a lease to own thingy at 75.00/mo, but the prices in the US now with the CDN Exchange @ a dollar for a dollar, etc.......$1699 vs 2200 + tax + lease fees = :(


:D

[Wedding Shooter]

You would get a lot more use out of the 135 and I think it is one of Canon's best lenses.

That said the 70-200L 2.8 IS is the lens you will eventually buy.

[mcmadkat]

1/160? Pfff you need to practice! I can shoot 1/50 @200mm without IS!

And yes I do practice doing it, it helps to know your limits. That way I know that I can safely get down to 1/15 on the 17-40L and 1/40 @70 and 1/50 @200 on the sigma.

Its well worth taking time to practice your shutter release technique.

I would go with the 135L f2 in your case.

[spphoto]

I couldn't imagine shooting anything without a telephoto. I find sometimes I wish I had more than 200mm, but that's just my style.

[picturecrazy]

1/160? Pfff you need to practice! I can shoot 1/50 @200mm without IS!


well, that's good for you. But you gonna tell a new wedding shooter with a new telephoto lens to shoot at 1/50 at 135mm? ?? And often, we have about 1 second to get into position, put the camera to our faces, focus, and get the shot.

I can do 1/50 at 200mm too, but I have to wait till I'm at a certain point in my breath, and preferably leaning on something. These are luxuries we almost never have in pj wedding shooting.

Go for the 135L, and shoot at 1/160.

[jamiewexler]

well, that's good for you. But you gonna tell a new wedding shooter with a new telephoto lens to shoot at 1/50 at 135mm? ?? And often, we have about 1 second to get into position, put the camera to our faces, focus, and get the shot.

I can do 1/50 at 200mm too, but I have to wait till I'm at a certain point in my breath, and preferably leaning on something. These are luxuries we almost never have in pj wedding shooting.

Go for the 135L, and shoot at 1/160.

Agreed - and even then, I found the 135 f2 to be "too slow" the few times that I tried to use it. I could never get a SS fast enough in the dark venues I typically shot, and ended up with more blurry photos than not. I'd actually recommend the 85 f1.8 if you are using crop bodies. On a 1.6 crop body it is effectively a 135mm f1.8 lens. I used to be able to handhold it a 1/125 without trying too hard - just about perfect for a ceremony in a darkish location. Before I had the 70-200 IS, the 85 was my "go to" lens for indoor available light ceremony work.

You can get an 85 f1.8 and a 135 f2.8 for about the same price as a 135 f2...

[tim]

Unless you really need it just wait for the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

1/160? Pfff you need to practice! I can shoot 1/50 @200mm without IS!

I can't. I need the standard rule : 1/200th for 200mm.

[mcmadkat]

BTW I am not trying to be rude, different people have different styles. I always try to keep the SS as high as possible, those are my ultimate low limits.

Thanks,

Sam

[Graybeard]

many people here advised me to get the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM but now I have been told to go for the 70-200mm F4.0 IS USM instead as it is half the price and much lighter and works just as well

any comments?

[RobKirkwood]

many people here advised me to get the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM but now I have been told to go for the 70-200mm F4.0 IS USM instead as it is half the price and much lighter and works just as well

any comments?The f4 IS is a great lens, and from f4 upwards there's very little to choose between it and its bigger brother (we have both of them). It really boils down to you and how much you need the f2.8 - because if you're going to buy the f2.8 eventually you may be wasting money on the f4 right now.

Rob

[JimAskew]

well, that's good for you. But you gonna tell a new wedding shooter with a new telephoto lens to shoot at 1/50 at 135mm? ?? And often, we have about 1 second to get into position, put the camera to our faces, focus, and get the shot.

I can do 1/50 at 200mm too, but I have to wait till I'm at a certain point in my breath, and preferably leaning on something. These are luxuries we almost never have in pj wedding shooting.

Go for the 135L, and shoot at 1/160.

Lloyd,

Why not select the 70-200MM f/4 EF L IS over the 135MM f/2 EF L? The prices are in the same range and the IS will help overcome the f/4 and you get the zoom for better framing? To me, and I own both lenses and have used both in weddings, the 70-220MM f/4 IS would be a better option of the two for all round wedding photography.

Ultimately if the OP goes this route then he should save to upgrade to the 70-200MM f/2.8 IS version.

My 2 cents worth.

[Thunderbird33]

I would be more than happy to see samples from the f4 IS version as it is half the cost.....what kind of shutter speeds are accomplished with the f4 IS?

Also, wouldn't the couple of stops I gain with an f4 IS kinda put me were the NON-IS 2.8 would be????

[JimAskew]

I would be more than happy to see samples from the f4 IS version as it is half the cost.....what kind of shutter speeds are accomplished with the f4 IS?

Also, wouldn't the couple of stops I gain with an f4 IS kinda put me were the NON-IS 2.8 would be????

I have some samples I can post when I get home from work tonight from a wedding last Saturday. I'll post a sample of the entire church so you can see the distance and lighting. Then I'll post a couple of altar shots taken with the 70-200MM f/4 IS. The 70-200MM lens put me right into the ceremony and I was pleased with the results.

[Thunderbird33]

That would be greatly appreciated! Thank you kindly!

[Banbert]

many people here advised me to get the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM but now I have been told to go for the 70-200mm F4.0 IS USM instead as it is half the price and much lighter and works just as well

any comments?

You need all the help you can get when your in a dark church or venue.

The weight isnt an issue, you dont notice it after you have used it at a couple of weddings.

The cost is the only issue and when your charging for wedding photos the extra cost of the 2.8 IS is very worth while for the ability it gives you in dark places.

I bought the 70-200 f4 L to start with but after just a couple of weddings I upgraded to the 70-200 F2.8 IS and have loved it ever since, unless they bring out a 70-200 F2.0 IS you will have to prise the 2.8 IS form my dead hand when I am gone, thats how good it is.

[Banbert]

If you cant afford the 2.8 IS at the moment then buy the F4 IS, I am sure its a great lens, but buy it with the knowledge up front that one day your very likely to trade it for the 2.8 IS :)

[Thunderbird33]

If you cant afford the 2.8 IS at the moment then buy the F4 IS, I am sure its a great lens, but buy it with the knowledge up front that one day your very likely to trade it for the 2.8 IS :)

Yer not making this easier!!! :D

[JimAskew]

Yer not making this easier!!! :D

The good news is that the 70-200MM f/4 IS will hold its value. If you do buy one and later decide to upgrade to the f/2.8 IS version you will not lose much in the resell of of the f/4 IS version :D

[Graybeard]

If you cant afford the 2.8 IS at the moment then buy the F4 IS, I am sure its a great lens, but buy it with the knowledge up front that one day your very likely to trade it for the 2.8 IS :)

thank you, i get your point....decisions..decisions, the person i spoke to at the pro-shop also said that working with a higher ISO, about 1600 will compensate very nicely for the loss of f without gaining noise
he says he has been shooting weddings for the last 16yrs and swears blind that 2.8 is not a need

[jgogums]

MTF or whatever graphs/charts, real life pics, lab tests, personal experience, etc. are great and can give you lots to mull over and chew on about a lens. But I had to figure out a way to digest it all in the hope I was going to make a good decision for me.

Ultimately when I made the decision to sell my f4 IS and purchase the 2.8 IS I boiled it down to the following:
- knowing my current abilities with a body/lens/flash setup in various lighting conditions
- assigning a level of importance to what I'm using the lens for (e.g. getting paid to shoot a wedding vs. having fun taking pics of my dog around the park...unpaid)
- my personal mental makeup. I know myself better than anyone else.
- how much I could afford

Once I kinda focused on those four items above, I able to make a decision I felt good about. I guess I look at the 2.8 IS as simply fitting my needs better than the 4.0 IS for my current abilities, various and sometimes unreliable shooting conditions (lighting), application (paid work vs. non-work), and mental makeup.

If I never started down this path of paid work I don't think I would have switched. But for me, at this point, I thought the latitude of having 2.8 or faster lenses available if needed since I was getting into the 'paid' realm was a better fit for me on all levels.
I like options. I know that about myself. I was willing to pay for it.

I only offer this as another way to digest all the impressive info. about these great lenses. You really won't make a bad choice. These lenses are just excellent. It's just figuring out which is best for you! Good luck!

[JimAskew]

That would be greatly appreciated! Thank you kindly!

As promised. Here is the church photo taken with my 17-55MM EF-S IS: 1/25th, 17MM, f/5.6, ISO 1600. I ran this through Noise Ninja and then PSCS. For the next two shots I am going to post I was standing at the very back of the church at the center aisle.

[JimAskew]

Here are two 70-200MM f/4 EF L IS photos of the ceremony both taken from the rear of the church. I used my dRebel XT for both.

Both photos have been processed in Noise Ninja and then PSCS.

The first is at 1/80th, f/4, 183MM, ISO 1600

The second is at 1/50th, f/4, 169MM, ISO 1600

Hope this helps to put things in perspective.

[Banbert]

thank you, i get your point....decisions..decisions, the person i spoke to at the pro-shop also said that working with a higher ISO, about 1600 will compensate very nicely for the loss of f without gaining noise
he says he has been shooting weddings for the last 16yrs and swears blind that 2.8 is not a need

And upto a point thats true, but if your in a venue and your shooting wide open with the F4 and getting 1/15 your gonna be wishing you still had some more to work with.

I dont tend to use primes, in a church were quite often not allowed to move around and so primes would be tough to work with so its about having the best zoom available to give me the best chance of being able to get the shot I want without camera shake being a problem that means the 70-200 F2.8 IS

[Space]

I brought the 200 f/2.8. Put it on my 30D and haven't taken it off. It's an excellent lens. Yes you would get some great shots with it at any wedding. You wouldn't be diappointed. After I finish playing with it on the 30D, i'll put it on the 5D and have some more fun.

[viewing-the-invisible]

Love the 70-200mm f.28 L. It is a great lens and I always find some reason to use it.

[tmonatr]

1/160? Pfff you need to practice! I can shoot 1/50 @200mm without IS!



I, and I'm sure everyone else, would LOVE to see some of these shots.:rolleyes:

[Thunderbird33]

Here are two 70-200MM f/4 EF L IS photos of the ceremony both taken from the rear of the church. I used my dRebel XT for both.

Both photos have been processed in Noise Ninja and then PSCS.

The first is at 1/80th, f/4, 183MM, ISO 1600

The second is at 1/50th, f/4, 169MM, ISO 1600

Hope this helps to put things in perspective.

More than capable for sure!

Thank you again!!

[Banbert]

Theres no denying that the F4 IS is a great lens, but if you get it instead of the F2.8 you just have to accept that if you shoot a low light venue and your getting 1/15 or 1/8 at ISO 1600/3200 at F4 ..... the 2.8's extra stops would give you a better chance of getting the shot.

You could of course make the same argument with the 2.8 IS v a low light prime .... but the zoom is a lot more flexible than a fixed focal length prime.