Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

[jaypie77]

Is the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM a reasonable alternative to the 70-200mm F/4? The price is slightly higher, but it would seem that this might be a good lens for sports and some wildlife. Thoughts?

[drisley]

That is an awesome lens!
It would be long enough for some sports and wildlife, but maybe a little short sometimes.
However, you could buy the 1.4x extender, and you will also have a 320mm F4 lens with no loss of quality!

[daveh]

It's a great lens. As for an alternative, well it's faster but it doesn't zoom. I'd make that trade.

[stuartf287]

This is a superb lens which I love, but a 1.4 TC will extend it only to 280mm, not 320. To get to 320 you would need a 1.6 TC, so I think drisley may have been thinking of the 10D/20D/D60 crop factor.

[jaypie77]

Yes, I would be using with a 300D.

[drisley]

This is a superb lens which I love, but a 1.4 TC will extend it only to 280mm, not 320. To get to 320 you would need a 1.6 TC, so I think drisley may have been thinking of the 10D/20D/D60 crop factor.
:lol:
Actually, drisley WASN'T thinking!
Thanks for the correction.

[jaypie77]

I was hoping to hear a couple of people give a reason as to why I shouldn't get this lens over the zoom. I think I'll order it tomorrow. My main hope for this lens is sports and lower-light use. I might even do some wildlife, but nothing too small and/or far away.

Does anybody think that the prime will be a pain in the ass? My long-term plan is to buy a longer range lens within 12 months (as soon as I get cash). So my thought is that this will be a good lens for mid-range subjects and then I can grab a 400 or longer prime or zoom in the near future.

[edsarkiss]

sorry, but i won't discourage you from getting the 200/2.8L.

i have the first version, and LOVE IT. it is very fast and silent to focus, and the optics are PHENOMINAL. there is no bad aperture to shoot at, there is no distortion, and no color fringing.

given the choice, i will always pick a prime over a zoom. i think the convenience of a zoom leads to laziness, and cools the creative fire.

[prsast]

This was always one of my favorite lenses it is pin sharp, light, fast focusing and a delight to use. Mine is a Mk1 which I picked up second hand for £300 in spotless condition, optically it is identical to the MKII but is oftern overlooked in preference of the sexier zooms and hence is a cracking S/H buy.

I used to shoot much of my nature work with a 300mm f2.8 however now I have cought the digital bug the 1.3x/1.6x multiplication factor puts this then right where the 300mm used to be exept at a fraction of the weight and 10x the portability.

In Africa I would not be without it, although a zoom would be nice in good light, at dusk and dawn (when most shots are taken) the faster primes really come nto there own.

Hope this helps

Andy

[DeeplyDigital]

I have this lens, the MK1, bought 2nd hand. The optics are superb - sharp, accurate etc..

I use it mostly for concerts and other low light photography.

I much prefer it to the 70-200 4,0 though I have used that, too, for concerts with a high iso setting.

J.
-

[jaypie77]

Thank you all: I'm ordering this lens now.

[roanjohn]

given the choice, i will always pick a prime over a zoom. i think the convenience of a zoom leads to laziness, and cools the creative fire.

OOOOHHH!!! Drisley got competition!!! :D

Ro1