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
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 27 Apr 2017 (Thursday) 16:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 200mm f/2 - Do or Do NOT???

 
Silver-Halide
Senior Member
772 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 205
Joined Jan 2015
     
May 01, 2017 03:00 |  #16

What I'd really love to see is a thread where people shoot a couple at 200mm f/2.0 and then again at f/2.8. I'm sure its softer, but worth all that extra weight and bulk (and cost??). :rolleyes:


Echoes in Eternity LLC | Tucson and Southern Arizona Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,418 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 2156
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
May 01, 2017 05:22 |  #17

Silver-Halide wrote in post #18343274 (external link)
What I'd really love to see is a thread where people shoot a couple at 200mm f/2.0 and then again at f/2.8. I'm sure its softer, but worth all that extra weight and bulk (and cost??). :rolleyes:

The 200/2 has an edge in color reproduction and contrast which is where I mainly see a difference. The bokeh is the next. It does make a difference but for most the money/weight/bulk is not worth it. For me I also use it alot with the 1.4xiii so I get a 280 2.8 that on IQ matches/slightly excels the sigma 120-300 I was shooting so I get basically two lenses with dual purpose. Also for those that are pushing their limits on shutter/ISO for indoor low light sports and/or gymnastics/dance recitals the F2 is very valuable. Many times where I'm riding 1/640 and ISO 12,800 the drop to 6,400 makes a pretty good difference.


My entire hobby of gear lust has temporarily been shifted into overload. Please be patient while my mind tries to get back onto the road to recovery. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause....
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,436 posts
Gallery: 122 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4016
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
May 01, 2017 06:46 |  #18

It is insanely sharp wide open.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,734 posts
Likes: 890
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
May 01, 2017 11:36 |  #19

I think now a days lot of lenses are getting sharp. Just look Nikon 105mm f1.4 or the Sigma 85mm f1.4. Sure there is no 200mm f2 but right now it is 8 yr old lens. Before 300/400mm f2.8 IS version IIs came along, the original 300/400mm f2.8 IS I were the kings but Canon did improve them.:)


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,418 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 2156
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
May 01, 2017 12:03 |  #20

bobbyz wrote in post #18343559 (external link)
I think now a days lot of lenses are getting sharp. Just look Nikon 105mm f1.4 or the Sigma 85mm f1.4. Sure there is no 200mm f2 but right now it is 8 yr old lens. Before 300/400mm f2.8 IS version IIs came along, the original 300/400mm f2.8 IS I were the kings but Canon did improve them.:)

In the 300/400 defense there was more improvements made to the IS, focusing and weight of the lens than improvement in IQ. There is still absolutely nothing wrong w/ the V1 lenses in the IQ department.

But overall yes many lenses being released is sharp as hell.


My entire hobby of gear lust has temporarily been shifted into overload. Please be patient while my mind tries to get back onto the road to recovery. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause....
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,938 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1647
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
May 05, 2017 20:28 |  #21

I was on the fence but ultimately went with the 300 F/2.8L

300 give me a bit more reach and is same weight. With a 1.4 TC I am at 480mm which I dont need for weddings. However 300 at f2.8 i use all the time and the results are really nice. 300 gives me nice 1/2 body shots from most of the back rows in churches on a full frame sensor. It goes to every wedding. 2ooL is a bit more creamier on the bokeh but the 300 is no slouch

This is straight off the camera for a 300 from last weeks wedding


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


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


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,938 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1647
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
May 05, 2017 20:32 |  #22

additionally

300 on a crop is 500mm at F4 and I can hand hold. With a TC im over 600mm and can hand hold at F/5.6

so if you do anything other than portraits, I feel the 300 is a much better way to go

200 is really a specialty portrait lens for outside use and you need the room to be able to work with it and get your best results

For me it came down to one or the other and for my needs I went 300. I cant afford both and the 135L is such a bargin that I already owned that the 300 made more sense for me

hope this helps


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lyndön
Goldmember
1,941 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 109
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post edited 11 months ago by Lyndön.
     
May 06, 2017 05:18 |  #23

I agree that the 300 2.8 IS is a much more versatile lens than the 200/2, which is why I own one. I've yet to use it for a wedding (^ those shots are awesome btw), but for the sports I've used it for it's been incredible. Blindingly fast AF and just nails focus every time. The 200 seemed a bit redundant with my current gear as well, since I already have the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

Truth be told, the 300 was probably my preferred "bucket list" lens anyways.


GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,436 posts
Gallery: 122 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4016
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
Post edited 11 months ago by airfrogusmc.
     
May 06, 2017 09:10 |  #24

My bucket list lens is the Leica M 50mm 0.95 Noctilux.

I owned a 200 2L for 8 years and it, as I said earlier, is truly on of Canons finest.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tigerkn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,052 posts
Likes: 153
Joined Feb 2009
Location: CA
     
May 06, 2017 12:20 as a reply to  @ airfrogusmc's post |  #25

After more digging, researching, reading, asking and play with what I have in my bag, I decided not to buy the 200mm f/2. Though the Canon 135mm could be a great lens to be added instead. The thought of lugging this lens around and babysitting it on the wedding day made me changed my mind as 50% of my weddings I shoot solo. Thank you for sharing your thought everyone!!!


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link) | Gears (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,938 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1647
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
May 09, 2017 08:23 |  #26

Tigerkn wrote in post #18347829 (external link)
After more digging, researching, reading, asking and play with what I have in my bag, I decided not to buy the 200mm f/2. Though the Canon 135mm could be a great lens to be added instead. The thought of lugging this lens around and babysitting it on the wedding day made me changed my mind as 50% of my weddings I shoot solo. Thank you for sharing your thought everyone!!!


If your a canon shooter and You dont have a 135L....Big mistake...great choice for solo shooters...keep shutter above 1/160 and be prepared to have your mind blown.........Good choice


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tigerkn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,052 posts
Likes: 153
Joined Feb 2009
Location: CA
     
May 09, 2017 11:17 |  #27

umphotography wrote in post #18349913 (external link)
If your a canon shooter and You dont have a 135L....Big mistake...great choice for solo shooters...keep shutter above 1/160 and be prepared to have your mind blown.........Good choice

Thanks Mike! My mind was set on the 135L but then I saw your AWESOME shots from your new toy "The 135A" :) :( :). Now I have to save more lunch money :)


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link) | Gears (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Silver-Halide
Senior Member
772 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 205
Joined Jan 2015
     
May 09, 2017 14:24 |  #28

umphotography wrote in post #18349913 (external link)
If your a canon shooter and You dont have a 135L....Big mistake...great choice for solo shooters...keep shutter above 1/160 and be prepared to have your mind blown.........Good choice

I've shot a few images with it and I can see myself having something faster than my 70-200mm f/2.8 II some day.

Wide open the new 1.8 Sigma seems to have less C.A. than the Canon, but I suspect the Canon may be more durable and longer lasting than the Sigma. Then there's the whole $1,500 price tag :rolleyes:


Echoes in Eternity LLC | Tucson and Southern Arizona Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,938 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1647
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
May 09, 2017 19:15 |  #29

Tigerkn wrote in post #18350045 (external link)
Thanks Mike! My mind was set on the 135L but then I saw your AWESOME shots from your new toy "The 135A" :) :( :). Now I have to save more lunch money :)


My new toy is the Sigma 85 art

I would never part with my 135L. I have a great copy and the lens is stellar product in canons line up


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,938 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1647
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
May 09, 2017 19:16 |  #30

Silver-Halide wrote in post #18350236 (external link)
I've shot a few images with it and I can see myself having something faster than my 70-200mm f/2.8 II some day.

Wide open the new 1.8 Sigma seems to have less C.A. than the Canon, but I suspect the Canon may be more durable and longer lasting than the Sigma. Then there's the whole $1,500 price tag :rolleyes:


especially when you can find clean 135L's for $700.00 everywhere


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

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

13,429 views & 18 likes for this thread
Canon 200mm f/2 - Do or Do NOT???
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sdenman77
637 guests, 395 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.