Canon EF 2.8 200mm USM L

[wiselion]

Hey everyone:
What is the difference between the Canon EF 2.8 200mm USM L and the Canon EF 2.8 200mm USM L II? I know the Canon EF 2.8 200mm USM L is the older model, but is their any difference in sharpness or quality between the two? I can get a Canon EF 2.8 200mm USM L used for $325.00, and I wonder if its worth it. It has a dust particle inside the lense, but the store owner told me I would never see it in my pic's. What do some of you guys think? Feedback please...

[norcal99]

For $325 I would jump on it right away. Thats a steal! Even if you don't end up liking it, which I highly doubt, you can resell it for much more.

[kfong]

Optics btw the Mk I and Mk II are reportedly the same.
The Mk I has a built-in lens hood, but it is rather short. Extends beyond the front element by about 1.5". The Mk II accepts external lens hood.

Ken

[greyson08]

wow, thats quite a deal!

I got one second hand for 150 more... but its an awesome lens, I want to couple it with a 1.4x to get some more versatility out of it. but, the pictures are amazing.

[wiselion]

So you think it will do a better job than my 75-300 IS?

[Huckaback Photo]

The 200 f 2.8 is a wonderful lens with nothing to seperate version 1 & 2 except the built in lens hood, which i think is more sensible, some of my sharpest images have been taken with this lens.
as L series lenses go this is real good value and one that you will not want to part with.
I also use it with 1.4 extender, the 12mm extension tube also gives it real useful close focusing.

I guess its not all that will buy it as some prefer zooms, in reallity try using a fast prime like this for stage or sports photos as compared to a sometimes slower zoom. it wins every time.

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

My Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo

[wiselion]

The 200 f 2.8 is a wonderful lens with nothing to seperate version 1 & 2 except the built in lens hood, which i think is more sensible, some of my sharpest images have been taken with this lens.
as L series lenses go this is real good value and one that you will not want to part with.
I also use it with 1.4 extender, the 12mm extension tube also gives it real useful close focusing.

I guess its not all that will buy it as some prefer zooms, in reallity try using a fast prime like this for stage or sports photos as compared to a sometimes slower zoom. it wins every time.

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

My Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo

Thanks Martin

[Bodog]

So you think it will do a better job than my 75-300 IS?

Yes, but only at 200mm! :D

$325 is a steal. I've been "shopping" for one on Ebay, but used is going for almost as much as new ($650). I think any older lens will have some dust, incuding any in your camera bag. If you want to make a quick $100, I would be interested... Where are you located?

[CyberDyneSystems]

I understood that the older version of the 200mm f/2.8 prime could not fit the 1.4X T-con?

Just something I have read,. I can not offer first hand info,. it if a T-con is something you have in mind,. you may want to be sure it will work.

[mbze430]

That is true the older MKI will not fit, it's missing that hollow area.

[Huckaback Photo]

Check this out just photographed it for your benefit its the series 1 version
paid £285 on Ebay think i had a real bargain came from a pro photog.

if you find one second hand at reasonable cost, just buy it coz its one lens even if you only use for a couple of years,
you can sell on for same money. believe me.

PS. results are great

Martin

[Huckaback Photo]

A shot with above lens (no converter this time)
D60 at 1000 iso / hand held / stage lighting

view original if on broadband.

http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo/image/41210485/large

Martin

[wiselion]

A shot with above lens (no converter this time)
D60 at 1000 iso / hand held / stage lighting

view original if on broadband.

http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo/image/41210485/large

Martin

Thanks again Martin. I guess from what these guys are saying I won't be able to throw the 1.4 converter in it. Have you heard different?

[darkdrakon]

if you buy it you wont be sorry and it will completly blow the 75-300 is out of the water thier is no compairson one is an L and the other in a comsumer lens. if wou want a zoom get the 70-200 f'4, you wont find it for 325.00 tho

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. this photo would certainly seem to illustrate that you can use the 1.4X?
Seems we've been mislead?

[wiselion]

Well,. this photo would certainly seem to illustrate that you can use the 1.4X?
Seems we've been mislead?

Hey Cyber:
I called Canon's technical lense division, and the guy told me it would fit on the older model. He was not srre at first, but he looked it up and found it will work.

Mike

[ed2day]

I wish one fell into my lap. I wouldn't think twice at that price. A little dust isn't likely to even be visible as it's way out of focus.

[karusel]

Like posters above have said, the optical quality is the same, and as far as I know, the lenses are identical, except for the minor cosmetical differences. And the TC thing.

Can anyone tell from their own experience how the 200 2.8L (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=7315) compares to 70-200 2.8L IS (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7469) (at 200mm, obviously :))? I've checked out MTF charts (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml) (links to Canon site's MTF charts of the lenses are above) and they clearly show the prime has much better bokeh, but also, the zoom is very surprisingly quite a lot sharper and contrastier - why this is so, is way beyond me.

On FM there's a review of the 200 prime (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=1&cat=2), and users report it's better than 70-200L IS, but I'd like to see a side to side shootout with 100% crop samples...

[Andy D]

I've been looking at this lens too. I have seen some 2nd hand ones advertised that were reasonably priced (got to offload some other stuff before I buy!) Can anyone tell me if the Mk1 version is USM, I seem to think that only the Mk2 has USM.
Cheers!

[wiselion]

I've been looking at this lens too. I have seen some 2nd hand ones advertised that were reasonably priced (got to offload some other stuff before I buy!) Can anyone tell me if the Mk1 version is USM, I seem to think that only the Mk2 has USM.
Cheers!

Andy:
Yes it is USM.

[Andy D]

Cheers Wiselion; all I have to do know is shift my old film gear and decide to buy 2nd hand or get a grey market import from the channel islands.... ;)

[wiselion]

Hey all:

Well I took some shots with used 200mm outside of the camera store and brought them home for review to see if it took good shots. I could not believe my eyes. This lense is smoking sharp. I was actually astonished how much sharper it is than my 75-300IS. Go figure this 200mm lense is 10 years old compared to a brand new 75-300. I really don't think age matters all that much though if you take care of something. I called the store and told them I'll be picking it up in the morning. What a lense for $325.00. The Bokeh is unreal as well.

Mike

[Andy D]

Hey all:

Well I took some shots with used 200mm outside of the camera store and brought them home for review to see if it took good shots. I could not believe my eyes. This lense is smoking sharp. I was actually astonished how much sharper it is than my 75-300IS. Go figure this 200mm lense is 10 years old compared to a brand new 75-300. I really don't think age matters all that much though if you take care of something. I called the store and told them I'll be picking it up in the morning. What a lense for $325.00. The Bokeh is unreal as well.

Mike

Enjoy!! ;)

[Bodog]

Hey all:

Well I took some shots with used 200mm outside of the camera store and brought them home for review to see if it took good shots. I could not believe my eyes. This lense is smoking sharp. I was actually astonished how much sharper it is than my 75-300IS. Go figure this 200mm lense is 10 years old compared to a brand new 75-300. I really don't think age matters all that much though if you take care of something. I called the store and told them I'll be picking it up in the morning. What a lense for $325.00. The Bokeh is unreal as well.

Mike
Good for you! Congrats and enjoy. I'm envious :p

[Huckaback Photo]

Andy
on the barrel of my 200mm f2.8 L in the picture above im pleased to say the word Ultrasonic is indeed there written in red .
of interest might be that the ultrasonic motor was first introduced in 1987
for the 300 mm f 2.8 L. usm.
I believe it was quite a thing at the time. & as we know is still in use on most lenses, one lens I do own without usm is the 135mm f 2.8 soft focus and i tell you its vary effective being able to dial in the amount of soft focus on the actual lens.
also you can create an effect with this lens that is impossible to achieve in Photoshop.

Please note.. both 200mm f2.8 L lenses can be used with both 1.4 and 2 x extenders
main difference seems to be the first version has a built in hood, one other advantage its incredibly compact I have acess to 2 of these lenses ( both mk 1's ) and both can deliver wonderful sharp images.

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

check these out for 2 results

First is taken with 200 mm f2.8 lens@ 1/1000th f2.8 and 400 iso

http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo/image/41232680/large

this at f3.5
http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo/image/41232673

[Huckaback Photo]

Wiselion
I hope i encouraged you a bit on this one I just put the links up to 2 images wide open shots hand held on a D 60 body 1/1000th and at 400 iso .
dont lose sight of the fact that D 60 is a 1.6 x crop factor, so what we really have, is effectively a
320mm f 2.8 with great depth of field to match.
around about f 4 or f5.6 quality picks up slightly in my view.

Cheers
Martin

[Andy D]

Wiselion

......dont lose sight of the fact that D 60 is a 1.6 x crop factor, so what we really have, is effectively a
320mm f 2.8 with great depth of field to match.
around about f 4 or f5.6 quality picks up slightly in my view.

Cheers
Martin

Martin, that is one of the reasons that attracts me to the lens (apart from the obvious quality) a 320mm f2.8 for under £440 sounds a bit of a bargain!

AndyD;)

[charlesu]

So you think it will do a better job than my 75-300 IS?

You're kidding, right?

[wiselion]

You're kidding, right?

Oh I'm a newbie,what else do you expect?:D :D :D

[wiselion]

Wiselion
I hope i encouraged you a bit on this one I just put the links up to 2 images wide open shots hand held on a D 60 body 1/1000th and at 400 iso .
dont lose sight of the fact that D 60 is a 1.6 x crop factor, so what we really have, is effectively a
320mm f 2.8 with great depth of field to match.
around about f 4 or f5.6 quality picks up slightly in my view.

Cheers
Martin

Martin:
Thanks for the 3rd time. Yes, your imput was the spark for sure. After all the positive responses how could I say no? I appreciate everyones input as well. I'm going to buy it this morning. If I can figure out how to post pic's to the site I'll get some out.
Hey By the way Martin, Stonhenge was made by Aliens. Don't let anyone tell you different;) ;) ;) .

[Huckaback Photo]

Cheers Wiselion
Although i am a bit concerned about stonehenge built by Aliens, especially as the stones came from right here in Wales.
have i missed the photo oportunity of a lifetime because i sure aint seen aliens around here recently.

Martin

[wiselion]

Cheers Wiselion
Although i am a bit concerned about stonehenge built by Aliens, especially as the stones came from right here in Wales.
have i missed the photo oportunity of a lifetime because i sure aint seen aliens around here recently.

Martin

Well keep your eyes open toward the skies. A picture of a real UFO would put some extra money in your bank acount.:) :) :) By the way, the new lense is unbelievable. I cannot believe the sharpness. I'm trying to figure out how to make my pic's come out larger on the forum pages. When I put them on under the 100 kb maximum they come out so small. I don't get it, since other people post such big pic's. What is the answer?????

Mike

[Citizensmith]

Cheers Wiselion
Although i am a bit concerned about stonehenge built by Aliens, especially as the stones came from right here in Wales.
have i missed the photo oportunity of a lifetime because i sure aint seen aliens around here recently.

Martin

They were Welsh aliens. Had an amazingly long and hard to pronounce name.

The problem with the aliens is they have pale skin, use bright lights, and tend to do the anal probe stuff at night. Makes metering a problem. Even a 1D or something has trouble getting it right. That's why there are so few decent alien photos.

[wiselion]

They were Welsh aliens. Had an amazingly long and hard to pronounce name.

The problem with the aliens is they have pale skin, use bright lights, and tend to do the anal probe stuff at night. Makes metering a problem. Even a 1D or something has trouble getting it right. That's why there are so few decent alien photos.


Classic answer :) :) :) :) :) :) :) .

[Huckaback Photo]

Hi Citizensmith
Love the reply,
Think I spotted an Alien in Prague last year or someone was taking the P--- http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/confused3.gif

By the way Prague is one of the most wonderful cities i've been to, just guard your wallet !

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

My Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo

P S.
Pizza restaurant in the background looked a nice place

[Citizensmith]

Think I spotted an Alien in Prague last year or someone was taking the P--- http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/confused3.gif


OK now thats a funny photo. :)

[Huckaback Photo]

Thankyou Citizensmith.
might like previous frame sets the scene sort of, really was a grab shot, just walking past a gateway & sort of did a double take could not believe what i was looking at.
Martin