Wayne MG wrote in post #2266526
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/58415372

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

Awesome color contrast in both photos!

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.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2266559
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.

rklepper wrote in post #2266560
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.

Wayne MG wrote in post #2266606
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 , 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.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2266843
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.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2266978
Hi Wayne, you managed to get the 200/2.8L II to flare , 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.

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.htm

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2266984
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.

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

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2267370
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.

Wayne MG wrote in post #2267086
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.

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.htm

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.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2267370
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.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2266062
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.

Tandem wrote in post #2268698
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 .

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