LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive
Thread started 12 Nov 2006 (Sunday) 09:19   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Photorebel
Senior Member
Joined Apr 2006
622 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

DaveL wrote in post #2255900external link
very interesting comment photo rebel. Last year I briefly
shots sports using the 70-200 f/2.8 and when I switched to
the 300 f/4L IS I oddly found that I had a higher percentage
of keepers.

but it's good discussion that everyone is bringing up. Seeing
what some have done with the 70-200, I'm wondering if it was
technique or my copy...

Frankly, I think it had more to do with technique in my case. I would be too busy zooming, and miss a shot. Or zoom..and not refocus in time. I also got several soft shots, with the 70-200. I would have thought it was the lens, but I also got some very sharp shots too. Same lens, same camera. I really believe it was my lack of technique with the 70-200. (non IS)
I didn't mean to imply the 200 is a far better lens. The 200 is a better lens _for me_, but not necessarily everyone else. I just tried to find the tool I could work with and get results, which is what I did.
I also got much better shots with the 300 f/4L in daytime softball, but not Friday night football.

Post #31, Nov 13, 2006 11:04:00


-Jeff
5DIII, 60D, 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.8,100 f/2.8L, 24-105f/4L
480 EXII

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
malla1962's Avatar
Joined Jul 2004
7,714 posts
Walney Island,cumbria,uk
[MORE/SHARE]

I have just got this lens sice losing my 70-200f2.8Lis and find it a very good lens along side my 135f2,I use primes most of the time now unless doing landscapes,took these few shots on a very bad day when it was blowing a gale,all hand held at f2.8.

IMAGE: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/malla1962/MO2Q4559.jpg
IMAGE: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/malla1962/MO2Q4544.jpg
IMAGE: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/malla1962/MO2Q4543.jpg

Post #32, Nov 13, 2006 13:12:20 as a reply to Photorebel's post 2 hours earlier.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Psychic1
Senior Member
Psychic1's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
997 posts
New York
[MORE/SHARE]

I do believe it is faster and sharper than my 135L.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://i.pbase.com ...7/2/81820515.XuXmWy​w8.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Post #33, Nov 14, 2006 21:34:21


1DsIII - 1DIII - TS-E24L - 35L - 135L - 400L 5.6 - 580EX II & CP-E3 - 270EX II - 1.4xII - 25mm Ext. - Angle Finder C - Jobu/Manfrotto - Sunwayfoto/Manfrotto - SkimmerPod II - Toshiba I7 - NEC Spectraview - Pro 9000 II

LOG IN TO REPLY
SolPics
Senior Member
SolPics's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
709 posts
Solana Beach, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

It's a very nice lens, and it's black so less noticeable.

Post #34, Nov 14, 2006 22:33:20


SolPics
Cannon 5D 30D, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2.0 L, 200 f/2.8 L, 500 f/4.0 L IS
17-40 f/4.0 L, 24-70 f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L, 580 EX,
Gitzo Tripod, all sorts of bags.

LOG IN TO REPLY
jackman1
Mostly Lurking
Joined Oct 2006
16 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I love its sharpness+speed ! I team it w/a 24-105 LIs and I'm basically covered from 24-200. Its light but again,very sharp.

Post #35, Nov 14, 2006 22:59:29




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
Joined Jun 2005
5,078 posts
san jose
[MORE/SHARE]

Psychic1, that's a nice pic. Great timing.

Post #36, Nov 14, 2006 23:57:34


Sonny
websiteexternal link|Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
19,823 posts
Hampshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Psychic1 wrote in post #2264271external link
I do believe it is faster and sharper than my 135L.

From all accounts the 135/2 and 200/2.8 have very similar sharpness.

Post #37, Nov 15, 2006 03:28:30


How to embed images from flickr so AMASS can retrieve the exif by Levina
My Photography Home Pageexternal link RSS Feedexternal link
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
calicokat
calicokat is BANNED
calicokat's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
14,720 posts
Southern California
[MORE/SHARE]

I highly recommend the 200 F/2.8L. I had one for a time, but sold it to fund other lenses as I have a 70-200 F/2.8L IS. But for the price, its hard to beat, great lens

Post #38, Nov 15, 2006 04:16:09


"You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife :eek: :twisted:
My Websiteexternal link

My Gear

Calicokat 1990-2007 RIP My Loving Kitty

LOG IN TO REPLY
StealthLude
Goldmember
StealthLude's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
3,680 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Great lens,

but i rather buy a zoom 70-200, and get the 135L as my prime.

Post #39, Nov 15, 2006 04:28:21


[[Gear List]]

Skype: Stealthlude

LOG IN TO REPLY
I ­ Simonius
Weather Sealed Photographer
I Simonius's Avatar
Joined Feb 2005
6,352 posts
On a Small Blue Planet with Small Blue People With Small Blue Eyes
[MORE/SHARE]

DaveL wrote in post #2251681external link
Hi, giving this lens some consideration and
I don't see alot of discussion about it. I see it's
very highly rated in the Miranda reviews.

does anybody have some shots/comments, it
seems very fairly priced used...

I'd looked at this lens in the past and although it looks great its only advantage over the new 70-200 f4IS would be with fast moving subjects i.e sports

Post #40, Nov 15, 2006 07:12:21


"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. - Albert Einstein" - yes, but why?
Snaps external linkor Gear or ----external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tandem
Goldmember
Tandem's Avatar
Joined Feb 2006
1,244 posts
Colorado Springs
[MORE/SHARE]

I have no doubt that it is an excellent lens but since I already own a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 135 f/2 + 1.4x it's very low on my wish list. Although I'm sure the 200 f/2.8 is a wee bit better in IQ than either of the above two options.

It's the f/2.8 part that keeps me from owning this lens. Now if Canon would re-release the 200 f/1.8 or come out with a 200 f/2, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

Post #41, Nov 15, 2006 07:13:15 as a reply to StealthLude's post 2 hours earlier.


Bill - A model needs careful lighting, professional makeup and expensive clothes to look as beautiful as any ordinary woman does to a man who has fallen in love with her.
G10, 5D, 1D2n, 1D3, 1Ds3, 1.4x, 2x / 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4 IS, 70-200 f4, 300 f4 IS / 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 200 f2.8, 300 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.8 IS / 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8M 135 f2
http://ColoradoSprings​.SmugMug.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
JaGWiRE
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2006
3,859 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Tandem wrote in post #2265823external link
I have no doubt that it is an excellent lens but since I already own a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 135 f/2 + 1.4x it's very low on my wish list. Although I'm sure the 200 f/2.8 is a wee bit better in IQ than either of the above two options.

It's the f/2.8 part that keeps me from owning this lens. Now if Canon would re-release the 200 f/1.8 or come out with a 200 f/2, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

So you actually think the 135L + 1.4x is a little bit less sharp (noticable in photos per say) then the 200 f2.8L?

Post #42, Nov 15, 2006 08:30:43


Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 105 Macro, 135L, 430ex, Lowepro Mini Trekker AW, Manfrotto 3001pro w/486rc2 and 804rc2 head, Manfrotto 681 w/ 3232 head.
http://www.brianstar.s​mugmug.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
foghorn
Senior Member
foghorn's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
329 posts
Fullerton, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

cwphoto wrote in post #2255877external link
Yeah I know - but not the price, size, or weight. :p

I just see those other advantages you list of the non-zoom as being fairly minor, all things considered.

AF and IQ. What else are you looking for in a lens?
So now you got size/weight/AF speed/IQ, and you still don't get why some people buy the prime?

Post #43, Nov 15, 2006 10:25:34


Canon 7D & 40D | 17-55 2.8 IS | 28 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 50mm 1.8 | 70-200mm 2.8L IS | 580EX II, 430EX |
http://www.flashandsho​w.wordpress.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
malla1962's Avatar
Joined Jul 2004
7,714 posts
Walney Island,cumbria,uk
[MORE/SHARE]

Psychic1 wrote in post #2264271external link
I do believe it is faster and sharper than my 135L.
NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have both and theres nothing in it realy,I would say the 135 has the edge on sharpness but AF is a lot faster on the 135:D.

Post #44, Nov 15, 2006 10:30:31


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wayne ­ MG
Member
Wayne MG's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
59 posts
Florida, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

I like my EF 200/2.8 a lot. Lately I've been tempted to sell it in exchange for a 70-200/2.8 IS as I might shoot some weddings though. My favourite 200/2.8 prime features are (1) black colour, (2) light weight, (3) 72mm filter size for sharing with my EF 135/2.0. Example shots from my EF 200/2.8:

http://www.pbase.com/m​arrio/image/58415372external link

http://www.pbase.com/m​arrio/image/67624589external link

Post #45, Nov 15, 2006 10:40:13 as a reply to malla1962's post 9 minutes earlier.


DIEU ET MON DROIT
Canon EOS 5DII | 24-70/2.8 | 85/1.2 | 135/2.0 | 200/2.8 I | 300/4.0 | 1.4X | 430EX II | 25mm | Arca Swiss B1 | Really Right Stuff | Lowell Omnilight | Photoflex Octodome | Eclypse Umbrella | Bogen 3221W | Elan II/IIE | Fuji Velvia 50; Sensia 100 | Kodak E200
external link

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
708,309 views & 1 like for this thread
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00346 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
888 guests, 759 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Severed Heads

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.