Canon 200 2.8 L

[mariusnagy]

Hi,
I'm thinking to buy this lens (Canon 200 2.8 L) and I already have the 100-400 L. There are others who have booth of them, and are you consider it useful? It has a better quality or I could use the 100-400 L at 200 instead to buy this lens?
Why I think to buy this lens is because I saw it smaller and more easy to handle on moving objects. But I saw it only on pictures :)

Thanks

[jbradc]

The main advantage is the light gathering ability of 200 F2.8, it is up to 2 stops faster than the 100-400 L. That's 4x more light entering the camera which means faster shutter speeds and or smaller aperture setting (larger numbers).

[cc10d]

jbradc is correct about the light values of the lens. You are also right about it being physically easier to handle. It is also black and smaller, not as noticed by others. It produces nice pictures. I was surprised by how often I try to zoom in though. :) I use both lenses and would not part with either one of them. You must also have something that covers the wider ranges , since you are looking at a lens whose range you allready have. I enjoy using the 200 f2.8L very much but also find need for 16 or 17 mm also and would have that covered before getting a range that the 100-400 covers. Unless I had a lot of indoor or other low light shooting to do. Having the ability to focus well in lower light is not what the 100-400 is best at. The fast lenses are great but beware depth of field limitations. The 200 is a fun lens to use. Enjoy

[Huckaback Photo]

Hi Mariusagy
I use both the lens you mention above
the 100 - 400 is quite superb in many ways the 200mm 2.8 L is also one of canons best ever lenses
indeed its also a good price for L glass
I have been working shooting 2 concerts this weekend using the 200mm, for 75% of pictures at various iso settings to suit stage lighting.
For many years i worked with 13 different olympus fixed focal length lenses, and no zooms, mainly the faster 2.8s etc.
theres a lot of talk on this forum about ideal starter lens, i suspect most would favor zooms.
and yet when it comes down to needing a bit of speed you cant beat the fixed focal length.
consider the 100 - 400 at the 200mm setting is now working at an aperture of f5. as its not a fixed f stop thoughout its range (f4.5 to f5.6)
compared to 200mm f2.8. relate this to shutter speeds and you soon understand why the proffesional photog need these sometimes fast & expensive lenses. anyone in the street can get good shots inside with flash but try without at f5.6 on a huge stage and little light. and of course no flash allowed, even if you used flash pos would not cover the distance.
So if your type of photog takes in the need for something a little more specific or indeed adventurous, go for it. Buy it and enjoy !!
A 50mm f 1.8 or 50 f 1.4....85mm f1.8 or f1.2 (if you feel flushed) 135mm f2 (i use a 135 F2.8 with the soft focus it suits me) 200mm f 2.8 put a canon 1.4 x extender in the bag to use with the 200mm you then have a vary good set of kit. the crop factor with digital is helpful with this range
of lenses, i frequently swap between 1.6x and 1.3x canon bodies to achieve more or less focal legth.
it has to be said none of the above address wide angle and its probs re.digital crop factor thats another story.
lots of people are sold a zoom as there first lens, by some sales person in a shop who knows all about the way to sell, but how does he or she know what you intend to take pictures of.
Theres lots of great sports photographers on this forum to name but one is pos wrong but shall we say Kenny G (whom i do not know and yet feel i should by viewing his useful comments, pics etc) he gives us an insight to his type of photos and the type of kit, (brilliant its never to late to learn) he needs for his work.
Imagine him walking into the photo shop, says "i need a new lens for motor sport". "yes sir we have just the thing its a 400mm f11 " you know what i'm saying.
at that point its up to you to decide, so ask all the questions first. read up on type of photog and what is best for you.
one last point..years ago i got to meet a fellow photographer who owned loads of different lenses
but would never take out more than one at any outing but produced some amazing results. all a short distance from where he lived.
so he goes on a walk with 28mm lens and really gets to know what it will do and type of image etc
next time he does same walk but only takes 200mm believe me this is good training as you now concentrate on images rather than the whats in the camera bag .
try it . let me know.
Cheers
Martin (huckaback Photo)

[MDJAK]

Martin, that was a great reply. I currently own the 100 f2.8 macro, the 17-40, the 70-200 2.8 IS and recently bought the 28-135 IS as a walk-around lens. I like them all, but am still in need of a faster lens for indoor sports photography. I am able to get close, but am still in need of a flash with the 70-200 F2.8 IS which is what I use mostly. I shoot mostly high school wrestling matches and am able to stand or sit on the edges of the mat.

I only have one camera body, the 20d.

Do you think the 135 F2 is the best next choice for me? Is the difference between F2 and F2.8 that much? I' m currently having to use ISO 800 OR 1600 and am not happy with the noise, especially at 1600, as I tend to print 16x20 and 13x19.

Thanks.
BTW, the 100 2.8 is the only fixed focal length I've ever owned and it is razor sharp. Now I need a tripod for macro work. But that's another story. Thanks

[Huckaback Photo]

MDJAK thanks for the compliment.
I had missed the inclusion of the 100mm macro f 2.8 above, and indeed its an excellent choice for any available light photos along with others like tamron 90mm 2.8 macro etc.
Now a question for you, if your answer is no go out and buy it.
you say you use a 20d is the battery grip attached when using 70 - 200.?
there are lots of people who cannot hold any lens of this size still, at long exposures the grip almost certainly improves the handling and ballance.
There always be someone to disagree with this but my advice would be "Do Not buy 135mm f2.L"
if you want L glass and can afford it. Go with 85mm f 1.2 L ..and or 50mm f1.4 as it sounds like you can get close to the subjects. the f 1.8 versions would also be a good choice.
do you own a hand held exposure meter if so you could easily check out what shutter speeds the various f stops will give at differing ISO settings.
so unlike my stage photos with light changing all the time, a school hall has a constant level of light ( the colour temperature of this light source is another matter).
so you could in theory take an incident light meter reading (ie : the light falling on the subject) not reflected off the subject.
once the EV value is set on a meter you just read off the F stop x shutter speed.

So you decide to work at ...ISO 800 ( camera will also give all this info easier for me to explain)
you get a reading of... EV 12 (exposure value)
Now the bad news .. say your fastest lens is only :
F5.6 wide open at 800 = 1/125th sec ( to slow for sharp pic of action)
F4. lens = 1/250
F2.8 = 1/500
F2 = 1/1000
F1.4 =1/2000
F1. = 1/4000 ( this is me dreaming owning a f 1.0 !!!)

so we now see its potential of owning a fast apperture lens
as you're already aware we could also increase ISO settings say 1600 thus allowing effectively one stop more in terms of shutter or f stop value
so f2 @ 800 = 1/1000
f2 @ 1600 = 1/2000 or of course move the f stop to f2.8 @ 1/1000
f4 @ 1/500 for even greater depth
in these digital days we can at last alter iso on camera unlike film

I could go on but hopefully this may well give you an idea of which way to head
Regards
Martin ( Huckaback Photo)

[Huckaback Photo]

Mdjac
also worth mention, your 100 f 2.8 macro and the 135 f2 L are vary close together in focal length,
so a couple of steps forward or back and only 1 f stop dif.
I know its all that extra exersise but i could certainly do with it after christmas !!!
Martin

[RichieHatch]

Hi mariusnagy

I recently bough the Mark I version of the 200 f2.8L lens secondhand from a friend. Its an amazingly good value lens, even new. This is my first move into telephoto primes and i am shocked at the difference in image quality when compared to my old 75-300 zoom. I am sure the 70-200 2.8 (or the f4 version) would be a closer match to this lens but the 2.8 is quite expensive and the f4 version is a stop slower. Another few things I like are, weight, build quality, out of focus quality (bokeh), focus speed and accuracy and sharpness wide open. Here are some pics i took recenlty on a dull day (i only have it 3 weeks and havent had a chance to test it on a bright day yet)....

http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/image/38747904
http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/image/38747900
http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/image/38748119


Good luck with whatever you buy but you will certainly be happy with this lens.

Regards

Richie

[Anders Östberg]

For me the 200/2.8 is a bit of a problematic lens. No doubt about the image quality, it's very good, but on a 1.3x or 1.6x camera it's not long enough, or it's too long. Personally I have more use from a 135/2 + 1.4x which is a superb lens and more versatile, or a 70-200/2.8 which is almost as good as the 200/2.8. There is of course things like price and weight to factor in, so it depends on your budget and style of shooting what suits you the best.

[Huckaback Photo]

This Sunday i was shooting a fund raising operatic concert for the Tsunami disaster appeal fund, I did not require large prints, so set up for 1D mk2 was M1. pixel size is 3104 x 2072 Whole frame (not my usual large or raw).
This image was with The above mentioned 200mm f2.8 hand held a distance approx 25m
aperture priority at f2.8
1600 iso
1/250 sec
1 is whole frame
2 is centre cropped same image

I think it shows how good this set set up is even when not working at max quallity.

Cheers
Martin