Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive
Thread started 20 May 2008 (Tuesday) 11:09
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon EF 200mm f/2 L IS USM

 
PeterAlex7
Member
156 posts
Joined Dec 2015
Jan 25, 2016 20:50 as a reply to post 17854885 |  #4561

Which one sharper between 200 f2L IS against 300 f2.8L IS II ?

I want to use one of them to shoot portrait, candid, handheld-ly.

Yes the 200L f2 has 5 stop IS, but the 300L II is lighter.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
Jan 25, 2016 20:54 as a reply to PeterAlex7's post |  #4562

I don't think there's anything "candid" about either lenses. When you've got one of these attached to the front of the camera, you become the center of the attention. :lol:


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
zeus77
Senior Member
zeus77's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Croatia
Jan 26, 2016 01:40 |  #4563

I think 200mm is better for portrait and handheld.
And 2.0 is big advantage to 2.8. I can get very sharp photos from hendhold on 1/15....on 300mm you need much faster shutter because is longer focal l.
200 is very sharp lens so i dont know for 300 mk2 but mk 1 is very sharp too.




LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,715 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by CyberDyneSystems.
Jan 26, 2016 12:38 |  #4564

The IS on the 300mm MkII is better, just to clarify. (I've never heard 5 stop being bandied about for the 200mm.)

Sharpness one vs the other at this level is indistinguishable. So the 200mm likely wins with aperture and more suitable FL for portraits in most cases.

But I agree, if you want telephoto that would be useful for candid, that sounds a lot more like a 135mm f/2L and you'd save a few thousand.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Zweihaender
Member
Joined Dec 2011
Jan 26, 2016 16:37 as a reply to CyberDyneSystems's post |  #4565

The IS on the 300mm MkII is better, just to clarify. (I've never heard 5 stop being bandied about for the 200mm.)

The 200mm f2.0 has the best IS of all lenses. With a shutter speed of 1/6th I get every third image sharp. With continuous shooting even 1/5th. The 200mm f2.0 is perfectly balanced. With the IS turned off you get better results than with the lighter 70-200mm f2.8 and turned off IS. Without IS I need 1/20-1/30th sec with the f2 and 1/40th sec with the 70-200mm f2.8 for a sharp image.

IMAGE: http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160126/dkicdekh.jpg
1DX (50 % crop), 1/6th, no continuous shooting.

Wide open and stopped down the 300mm II is a little bit sharper, but the 200mm f.2.0 at f2.0 is better than the 135mm and every 70-200mm at any focal length and any aperture.



LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
156 posts
Joined Dec 2015
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by PeterAlex7 with reason 'Wrong word'.
Jan 26, 2016 17:46 as a reply to jwcdds's post |  #4566

:D

Yeah I think so, the white lenses attract too much attention.

First of all, I'm really happy that the prime minister (my mother) has the same hobby with me (photography), so she allow me to spend more (than what I expected) on her budget.

We both love shooting people candidly. She dont know what lens that she wants, she just saying, "white lens". The first lens on my head was 70-200II.

I lately falling in love with the otus 85, thanks to Jan Hartmann for his beautiful shots. I visited his flickr gallery (more like stalking his gallery :D), found his few shots with the 200 f2 and then here I am. Wanna hear some advice? Dont visit his gallery, too much poison there hahaha :D

So, there are 2 options:

1. 5DIII + tamron 24-70 + 70-200II + otus 85

2. 5DIII + 24-105 + 135 f2 + 200 f2 (I feel 300 f2.8 is too long too)

I dont know which option that will satisfy me more, never use all of them, and will never rent all of them, it will cost more. In my head, 200 f2 in my camera bag must be cool, having one of canon's giants is everyone's dream. But deep in my heart option 1 is what I need.

Sorry for my long sharing, and sorry for my english.




LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by jwcdds.
Jan 26, 2016 19:18 as a reply to PeterAlex7's post |  #4567

I have the 200/2L because I've lusted after it for years. And now I have it (bought it used). But I rarely, or rather almost never, use it. It's collecting dust and it's somewhat sad. But since I am (at this point) not in financial disaster, so I see no harm keeping this lens around. :lol:

I figured since I bought it used, if I ever have to sell it, I shouldn't lose much (if any money) on the used market anyway.

IMO, the 200/2L is hands down the best lens for 200mm shooting. But it's not so good at 70-199mm. :lol:


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
156 posts
Joined Dec 2015
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by PeterAlex7 with reason 'Wrong word'.
Jan 26, 2016 23:58 |  #4568

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17873716 (external link)
The IS on the 300mm MkII is better, just to clarify. (I've never heard 5 stop being bandied about for the 200mm.)

Sharpness one vs the other at this level is indistinguishable. So the 200mm likely wins with aperture and more suitable FL for portraits in most cases.

But I agree, if you want telephoto that would be useful for candid, that sounds a lot more like a 135mm f/2L and you'd save a few thousand.

You were right, its hard to find which one sharper. I've tried on a 60d and sigma 70-300 at 188mm, and I found it's not suitable for me to take portraits in most cases. With its aperture, and shorter FL, the 200 f2 likely win the race.

Zweihaender wrote in post #17874040 (external link)
The IS on the 300mm MkII is better, just to clarify. (I've never heard 5 stop being bandied about for the 200mm.)

The 200mm f2.0 has the best IS of all lenses. With a shutter speed of 1/6th I get every third image sharp. With continuous shooting even 1/5th. The 200mm f2.0 is perfectly balanced. With the IS turned off you get better results than with the lighter 70-200mm f2.8 and turned off IS. Without IS I need 1/20-1/30th sec with the f2 and 1/40th sec with the 70-200mm f2.8 for a sharp image.

QUOTED IMAGE
1DX (50 % crop), 1/6th, no continuous shooting.

Wide open and stopped down the 300mm II is a little bit sharper, but the 200mm f.2.0 at f2.0 is better than the 135mm and every 70-200mm at any focal length and any aperture.

Wow, thanks for your IS test. Really helpful to toughen my decision between 200 f2 or 300 f2.8 II.

jwcdds wrote in post #17874196 (external link)
I have the 200/2L because I've lusted after it for years. And now I have it (bought it used). But I rarely, or rather almost never, use it. It's collecting dust and it's somewhat sad. But since I am (at this point) not in financial disaster, so I see no harm keeping this lens around. :lol:

I figured since I bought it used, if I ever have to sell it, I shouldn't lose much (if any money) on the used market anyway.

IMO, the 200/2L is hands down the best lens for 200mm shooting. But it's not so good at 70-199mm. :lol:

Ouch, when some people lusted to get this lens, you let this beautiful lens abandoned :(

In my country (indonesia), it is extremely hard to find this lens user, so dont ask how many of them selling this beast. No one. And I actually don't know whether this lens owner exist or not. Never found this lens on selling list.

No problem, I only missed 136-199mm which I can manage it by zooming on foot. :D




LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
Jan 27, 2016 00:04 as a reply to PeterAlex7's post |  #4569

I bought the 200/2L in anticipation of my kids growing up to play some sports. It's a shame that I work most Saturdays when games are being played. The hope is that sometime in the not-too-distant future, I can free up some Saturdays to attend a few games and take pictures :D


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
156 posts
Joined Dec 2015
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by PeterAlex7 with reason 'Wrong word'. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 27, 2016 00:13 as a reply to jwcdds's post |  #4570

Wish you will get more free days on weekend in the future, so you'll get more time with your kids and your beast. ;)




LOG IN TO REPLY
PCousins
Senior Member
PCousins's Avatar
Joined Nov 2014
Weston-Super-Mare (UK)
Jan 27, 2016 00:36 |  #4571

I did a review on the 200mm f/2 just over a year ago on this forum

http://photography-on-the.net .../showthread.php?t=1​410501

I can easily take sharp handheld shots at 1/10 sec with this lens and everyone being tact sharp, incredible...when you think it's 2.5kgs.

With Regard to PeterAlex7's question

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #17872942 (external link)
Which one sharper between 200 f2L IS against 300 f2.8L IS II ?

I want to use one of them to shoot portrait, candid, handheld-ly.

Yes the 200L f2 has 5 stop IS, but the 300L II is lighter.



It was the 200 f/2 that helped me decide to sell the 300 f2.8L IS V1...... At the time I done a comparison with the 200L using a 1.4x extender giving 280mm @ f2.8. The results were in favour of the 200 combo. That probably will not be the case now with the later 300 f2.8L IS II.....And in my opinion there is no better lens to shoot portraits with. I own a 85Lv2 and a 135L also, I always go for the 200 for portrait work first, only when I have limited space then I will use 1 of the other 2.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
156 posts
Joined Dec 2015
Jan 27, 2016 02:07 |  #4572

PCousins wrote in post #17874481 (external link)
I did a review on the 200mm f/2 just over a year ago on this forum

http://photography-on-the.net .../showthread.php?t=1​410501

I can easily take sharp handheld shots at 1/10 sec with this lens and everyone being tact sharp, incredible...when you think it's 2.5kgs.

With Regard to PeterAlex7's question

It was the 200 f/2 that helped me decide to sell the 300 f2.8L IS V1...... At the time I done a comparison with the 200L using a 1.4x extender giving 280mm @ f2.8. The results were in favour of the 200 combo. That probably will not be the case now with the later 300 f2.8L IS II.....And in my opinion there is no better lens to shoot portraits with. I own a 85Lv2 and a 135L also, I always go for the 200 for portrait work first, only when I have limited space then I will use 1 of the other 2.

Thanks for your great review. Unfortunately your photo bucket library is locked. But I can read your description clearly, it quite describes how great this lens is. Plus, there's someone says that 5DIII and 200 f2 is a great combo on your review.

But there is one problem, and its a big deal for me. I've read all super telephoto lens description, and all of them use drop in filter. My question is, if the filter attached on rear lens body, then what thing that can protect the lens from the front? This lens price tag is absolute expensive, I just cant let something break or scratch the lens because its unprotected from the front.




LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by airfrogusmc. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 27, 2016 08:54 |  #4573

Why would you spend all of the $$$$ to get that incredible sharpness only to put a cheap piece of unmatched glass on the front of it? I had mine for almost 8 years and used it in all conditions and when i sold it a month or so ago the glass was as clean as the day I bought it. I have switched to Leica M from Canon and that is one of the few lenses Canon makes that can run with Leica glass when taking sharpness and character. You think Canon Ls are pricey LoL. I paid out what I paid for my 200 2L for my 35 1.4 Summilux ASPH FLE. I only use filters for a desired effect. I still have a couple of old Canon lenses that have never had a filter on them (one is the 55 1.2 Aspherical almost 40 years old) and the glass looks as good as the day I bought them. Hood yes because they keep unwanted stray light from striking the front element but I would never put a filter for protection on a great lens. Also I have a friend the had a filter shatter and ruin a very expensive lens. The tiny shards of glass imbedded in the from element from an impact that would have never shattered a front element.




LOG IN TO REPLY
zeus77
Senior Member
zeus77's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Croatia
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by zeus77.
Jan 27, 2016 08:56 |  #4574

You can not go wrong with 200 f2, just just do it...best lens in every way I have.




LOG IN TO REPLY
PCousins
Senior Member
PCousins's Avatar
Joined Nov 2014
Weston-Super-Mare (UK)
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by PCousins.
Jan 27, 2016 10:27 |  #4575

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #17874520 (external link)
But there is one problem, and its a big deal for me. I've read all super telephoto lens description, and all of them use drop in filter. My question is, if the filter attached on rear lens body, then what thing that can protect the lens from the front? This lens price tag is absolute expensive, I just cant let something break or scratch the lens because its unprotected from the front.

I have owned my 200 f2 for several years now, I always use the hood, it's big enough to protect the front glass element, when I finish for the day shooting with it I put a hood cover on, they are about £5 a piece......I use these for my 200, 400DO & 500 (see pictures). There is not a need to worry about scratching unless you are real clumsy. The 3 of my telephotos are all 4+ years old but are as good as the day they came out of their packaging by using covers.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,283,905 views & 798 likes for this thread
Canon EF 200mm f/2 L IS USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00595 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is jeffsfolio
816 guests, 324 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016