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
 
JaGWiRE
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2006
3,859 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Wayne MG wrote in post #2266526external link
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

Awesome color contrast in both photos!

Post #46, Nov 15, 2006 10:47:14


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
rklepper
Dignity-Esteem-Compassion
rklepper's Avatar
Joined Dec 2003
8,993 posts
No longer living at the center of the known universe, moved just slightly to the right. Iowa, USA.
[MORE/SHARE]

This is a great lens. Yes, it is one of the great values in the Canon lens lineup. I have owned all of the 70-200 zooms (Except the new f/4 IS version, but I cannot imagine that the addition fo IS would increase IQ on a mediocre lens), and yes they are more "convenient" which is why more people own them. If it is convenience you want, then get the zoom. If it is better IQ you want, then get the 200.

Post #47, Nov 15, 2006 10:47:22


Doc Klepper in the USA
I
am a photorealist, I like my photos with a touch of what was actually there.
Polite C&C always welcome, Thanks. Gear List

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

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2266559external link
Awesome color contrast in both photos!

Thanks, glad you like the shots.

I might add that this lens is less prone to flare when pointed straight at the sun, compared to its zoom counterparts which have more internal lens elements. Something else to consider.

Post #48, Nov 15, 2006 10:55:32


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
JaGWiRE
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2006
3,859 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

rklepper wrote in post #2266560external link
This is a great lens. Yes, it is one of the great values in the Canon lens lineup. I have owned all of the 70-200 zooms (Except the new f/4 IS version, but I cannot imagine that the addition fo IS would increase IQ on a mediocre lens), and yes they are more "convenient" which is why more people own them. If it is convenience you want, then get the zoom. If it is better IQ you want, then get the 200.

I think primes can be more convenient at times, if your shooting at a certain focal length and don't want to carry all that weight around that a zoom might account for (please note this really only applies for primes under 300mm, at 300mm and after their zoom counterparts are close in weight), and want to stay as compact as possible, then I think a prime is more convenient.

Post #49, Nov 15, 2006 11:42:47


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

Wayne MG wrote in post #2266606external link
Thanks, glad you like the shots.

I might add that this lens is less prone to flare when pointed straight at the sun, compared to its zoom counterparts which have more internal lens elements. Something else to consider.

Hi Wayne, you managed to get the 200/2.8L II to flare :shock:, I have not been able to provoke that at all, even with the sun and other stong light sorces in the frame, one of the better controlled lenses in my experience.

Post #50, Nov 15, 2006 12:26:55


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
19,823 posts
Hampshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2266843external link
I think primes can be more convenient at times, if your shooting at a certain focal length and don't want to carry all that weight around that a zoom might account for (please note this really only applies for primes under 300mm, at 300mm and after their zoom counterparts are close in weight), and want to stay as compact as possible, then I think a prime is more convenient.

This is very much by feeling also.

Post #51, Nov 15, 2006 12:28:03


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

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2266978external link
Hi Wayne, you managed to get the 200/2.8L II to flare :shock:, I have not been able to provoke that at all, even with the sun and other stong light sorces in the frame, one of the better controlled lenses in my experience.

Hello Lester. Well, I have not been able to provoke flaring either to be honest. But I just wanted to make the point that primes exhibit flare than zooms in direct sunlight.

Now that you mention the Mark II designation, I will also add that the optics are identical to the Mark I version. The only thing Canon changed was the lens hood, making it detachable on the newer one. So if anyone is shopping around for this fantastic lens, there are chances to get the same great performance for a bit less cash.:idea:

BTW, here's one of the reviews that convinced me to buy this lens in the first place. Heck, I may never sell it now: http://emedia.leeward.​hawaii.edu/frary/canon​_ef200usm.htmexternal link

Post #52, Nov 15, 2006 12:55:56


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
JaGWiRE
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2006
3,859 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2266984external link
This is very much by feeling also.

It varies by person to person I guess. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS because I felt it was too heavy of a lens to lug around, especially for it's focal length. I think the 300 F/4L is a little bit lighter, but with that lens it'de probably be on my monopod more then in my hands.

Post #53, Nov 15, 2006 13:51:33


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
NordieBoy
Goldmember
NordieBoy's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
2,635 posts
Nelson NZ
[MORE/SHARE]

I've got a 200 2.8 MK I here but it's just lost autofocus :(

Post #54, Nov 15, 2006 14:15:08


Fran
:):):)

(The life (and death (and life)) of Niftyexternal link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
Joined Jun 2005
5,078 posts
san jose
[MORE/SHARE]

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2267370external link
I think the 300 F/4L is a little bit lighter, but with that lens it'de probably be on my monopod more then in my hands.

I think you'll be surprise of how light the 300 f4 is :)

I handheld it through a couple of football games without issues.

Post #55, Nov 15, 2006 14:17:01


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]

Wayne MG wrote in post #2267086external link
Hello Lester. Well, I have not been able to provoke flaring either to be honest. But I just wanted to make the point that primes exhibit flare than zooms in direct sunlight.

Now that you mention the Mark II designation, I will also add that the optics are identical to the Mark I version. The only thing Canon changed was the lens hood, making it detachable on the newer one. So if anyone is shopping around for this fantastic lens, there are chances to get the same great performance for a bit less cash.:idea:

BTW, here's one of the reviews that convinced me to buy this lens in the first place. Heck, I may never sell it now: http://emedia.leeward.​hawaii.edu/frary/canon​_ef200usm.htmexternal link

Well the thing is the normal accepted wisdom is primes have less flare than zooms for a given max fstop (in fact one of the main plus points for primes), so I was surprised to hear your finding.

Post #56, Nov 15, 2006 16:08:10


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
19,823 posts
Hampshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2267370external link
It varies by person to person I guess. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS because I felt it was too heavy of a lens to lug around, especially for it's focal length. I think the 300 F/4L is a little bit lighter, but with that lens it'de probably be on my monopod more then in my hands.

Yes me also, the 300 is about 2/3rds the weight of the f2.8 zoom. I can handhold that fine but for any lentgh of time you need a monopod. Its OK if you raise the lens up take a few shots and rest - its when you have to hold on target for 10mins etc.

The 70-200 f4 IS changes the dynamics a bit but f2.8 no IS can be better in some cases.

Post #57, Nov 15, 2006 16:10:44


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

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2266062external link
So you actually think the 135L + 1.4x is a little bit less sharp (noticable in photos per say) then the 200 f2.8L?

Since I haven't used a 200 f/2.8 I can only offer my opinion which isn't worth a whole lot in this case. Discounting the focal lenth I think you'd have to be a pixel peeper to notice the difference. I have been very happy with the 135+1.4 combination whenever I've used it. YMMV.

Post #58, Nov 15, 2006 18:46:44


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
JaGWiRE
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2006
3,859 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Tandem wrote in post #2268698external link
Since I haven't used a 200 f/2.8 I can only offer my opinion which isn't worth a whole lot in this case. Discounting the focal lenth I think you'd have to be a pixel peeper to notice the difference. I have been very happy with the 135+1.4 combination whenever I've used it. YMMV.

Good to hear. The 135L and 300L combo sounds mighty good to me :D.

Post #59, Nov 15, 2006 19:55:44


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
In2Photos
Cream of the Crop
In2Photos's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
19,808 posts
Near Charlotte, NC.
[MORE/SHARE]

I am going to use this thread for the lens archive. Please share your shots here.

Post #60, Nov 17, 2006 21:25:51 as a reply to JaGWiRE's post 2 days earlier.


Mike, The Keeper of the Archive

Current Gear and Feedback| My Pbase Galleryexternal link | mdsportsphoto.comexternal linkhttp://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=835433

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
708,308 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 0.00404 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
887 guests, 760 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.