Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

[DaveL]

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...

[pttenn]

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

[Dusty]

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

[crn3371]

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.

[timmyb]

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

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by DaveL

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.



This is about 30% of the frame width

[DaveL]

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

Dave

[liza]

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

[Permagrin]

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)....

[Cameragirl58]

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.

[nothin]

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

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by nothin

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

[ghms421]

Originally Posted by ed rader

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.

[GyRob]

Originally Posted by ed rader

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

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by gyrob

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