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

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

 
Silver-Halide
Senior Member
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 registered member)
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,158 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
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.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
May 01, 2017 06:46 |  #18

It is insanely sharp wide open.




LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,596 posts
Joined Nov 2007
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
Talley's Avatar
10,158 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
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.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
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.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
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.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lyndön
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2008
Knoxville, TN
Post has been edited 8 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...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been edited 8 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
4,047 posts
Joined Feb 2009
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
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
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.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tigerkn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,047 posts
Joined Feb 2009
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
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
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
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.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
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.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

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

11,676 views & 18 likes for this thread
Canon 200mm f/2 - Do or Do NOT???
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk


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 0.00132 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is TheSandValor
925 guests, 528 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017