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 Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive
Thread started 12 Nov 2006 (Sunday) 09:19
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

 
DaveL
Senior Member
DaveL's Avatar
866 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Southern NH
Nov 12, 2006 09:19 |  #1

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...


Canon 5D MKIII, 6D, 1D Classic
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/4L IS, 28-70L, 16-35L II,
Alien Bees B800 strobes, softboxes, pocket wizard X's
Gibson Guitars
Marshall Amps

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
pttenn
Cream of the Crop
pttenn's Avatar
9,671 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Tennessee
Nov 12, 2006 09:30 |  #2

I have and love this lens, it is fast in even poor light. I have got a lot of shots of birds in flight with it. I just got the 400 prime because I wanted m ore reach but still have the 200 and will keep it.
Karen


Canon 50D, 40D, Tokina 12-24,Canon 18-55,Canon 28-135 IS, Canon 50 1.8,Canon 75-300 5.6,
Canon 200 2.8 L, Canon 400 f/5.6 L, Bogen monopod and Sunpak Tripod with manfrotto Pistol ball grip.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dusty
Goldmember
Dusty's Avatar
Joined Sep 2006
Sydney, Australia
Nov 12, 2006 09:42 as a reply to pttenn's post |  #3

I love this lens, bought it for my astrophotography work which places a lot of demand on a lens but I also use it for daytime shots.

You won't regret it and you'll be getting what you pay for.

The tiger shot was taken with a 2x tele, hand held.
The astro shot was taken at native 200mm f/2.8 of a comet which split in two.

Dusty

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

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

Dusty
20Da, 7D MkII, 5DII,1DX, 16-35L , 24-105L , 85L , 135L , 200L f/2.8 , 300L f/2.8 , MP-E 65

LOG IN TO REPLY
crn3371
Cream of the Crop
crn3371's Avatar
7,198 posts
Joined Mar 2005
SoCal, USA
Nov 12, 2006 11:29 |  #4

It's an excellant lens. Fast, sharp, relatively compact, and inconspicuous. It really comes down to whether you can live with a prime, or want the versatility of a zoom.




LOG IN TO REPLY
timmyb
Member
85 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Nov 12, 2006 11:54 |  #5

It's a lens with the wow factor.I don't see it very much due to my own limitations but every so often there it is.
I was happy with this recent effort at 2.8

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/image/69351869.jpg



LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Nov 12, 2006 11:58 |  #6

DaveL wrote in post #2251681 (external 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 also have and love this lens. It is extreamly sharp, takes the EF 1.4X without significant IQ loss and copes very well with the EF 2X. Probably the sharpest lens I have, very nice build quality with an all metal lens barrel.

It is light and compact for its focal length and fstop, and black which makes it less conspicuous.

No IS but it can still work well in low light.

Most people seem to go with the 70-200 zooms in this range, for myself I teamed it with the excellent 100mm f2.8 macro. The 200/2.8 is one of the most overlooked lenses and also one of the best bang for the buck.

You can't really judge sharpness from downsampled web images but here are a couple of shots, both a 20D.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk ...0Stag%20Calling%200​01.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


This is about 30% of the frame width

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk ...r%20Male%20131%20co​py.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
DaveL's Avatar
866 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Southern NH
Nov 12, 2006 12:19 as a reply to timmyb's post |  #7

very nice shots Tim and Dusty, thanks for posting.
Dusty, on the tiger shot which brand TC were you
using?

Dave


Canon 5D MKIII, 6D, 1D Classic
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/4L IS, 28-70L, 16-35L II,
Alien Bees B800 strobes, softboxes, pocket wizard X's
Gibson Guitars
Marshall Amps

LOG IN TO REPLY
liza
Cream of the Crop
11,386 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Mayberry
Nov 12, 2006 12:51 |  #8
banned

The 200mm is an exceptional lens. I really like the image quality much better than my 70-200 f/4.



Elizabeth
Blog
http://www.emc2foto.bl​ogspot.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Permagrin
High Priestess of all I survey
Permagrin's Avatar
77,910 posts
Joined Aug 2006
day dreamin'
Nov 12, 2006 12:57 as a reply to liza's post |  #9

It's a fantastic lens....greak bokeh, fast....I love it (and it's in my husband's kit)...I'd compare it to my 135L for picture quality...I love it and would use more often than I do (except that it's in use)....;)


.. It's Permie's world, we just live in it! ~CDS

LOG IN TO REPLY
Cameragirl58
Senior Member
Cameragirl58's Avatar
338 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Somerset,UK
Nov 12, 2006 13:02 as a reply to DaveL's post |  #10

I absolutely love the lens, I bought it originally for concert work because of the focal length and aperture,it's sharp and I find it nicely balanced on my 350D.
It was money well spent :)
Here's a couple of photos taken with it...the dog was taken at 1/125, f2.8, ISO 1600 and the singer at 1/60, f4, ISO 400.

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

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

My website http://www.cp-photoimages.co.ukexternal link
Canon 5D + 24-105 4.0 IS L, Canon 200 f2.8 L
Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 100 Macro f2.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
nothin
Hatchling
nothin's Avatar
5 posts
Joined Nov 2006
Oregon
Nov 12, 2006 14:23 |  #11

It's sharp as a tack, light weight (relatively), and the best bang for the buck by far in L glass. If you need it, you can't go wrong with this lens. Love mine!

Dan




LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
22,298 posts
Joined May 2005
silicon valley
Nov 12, 2006 14:36 |  #12

nothin wrote in post #2252652external link
It's sharp as a tack, light weight (relatively), and the best bang for the buck by far in L glass. If you need it, you can't go wrong with this lens. Love mine!

Dan

i think you would get some argument about that. the 70-200L f4 and 17-40L are far more popular, have excellent IQ and are also inexpensive as far as Ls go.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D3, 7d, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L II, 14L II, 15mm FE (sigma), gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY
ghms421
Senior Member
ghms421's Avatar
471 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Bethesda,MD
Nov 12, 2006 14:40 |  #13

ed rader wrote in post #2252692external link
i think you would get some argument about that. the 70-200L f4 and 17-40L are far more popular, have excellent IQ and are also inexpensive as far as Ls go.

ed rader

For slightly more you get a sharper lens and f2.8. After trading my sigma 70-200 for 70-200F4L+cash, I'm now considering selling the 70-200 and getting this and an 85f1.8.




LOG IN TO REPLY
GyRob
Cream of the Crop
9,920 posts
Joined Feb 2005
N.E.LINCOLNSHIRE UK.
Nov 12, 2006 14:43 |  #14

ed rader wrote in post #2252692external link
i think you would get some argument about that. the 70-200L f4 and 17-40L are far more popular, have excellent IQ and are also inexpensive as far as Ls go.

ed rader

i agree both are super lense's but both are f4 .
Rob


"The LensMaster Gimbal"
http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh1.htmexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
22,298 posts
Joined May 2005
silicon valley
Nov 12, 2006 14:46 |  #15

gyrob wrote in post #2252722external link
i agree both are super lense's but both are f4 .
Rob

but both are zooms and therefore more versatile and widely owned.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D3, 7d, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L II, 14L II, 15mm FE (sigma), gitzo, markins, benro

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

858,607 views & 136 likes 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 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 0.00091 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is jkaving
574 guests, 523 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016