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
 
DaveL
Senior Member
DaveL's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
827 posts
Southern NH
[MORE/SHARE]

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...

Post #1, Nov 12, 2006 09:19:41


Canon 6D, 1D MKIII, 1D Classic
Canon 300 2.8L IS, 28-70L,16-35L II, 85mm 1/8, 50mm 1.4, 70-200 2.8L IS
Cheap Ebay strobes, softboxes
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
Joined Mar 2006
9,670 posts
Tennessee
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #2, Nov 12, 2006 09:30:24


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
1,079 posts
Sydney, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #3, Nov 12, 2006 09:42:54 as a reply to pttenn's post 12 minutes earlier.


Dusty
20Da , 7D , 5D, 5DII , 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
Joined Mar 2005
7,198 posts
SoCal, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #4, Nov 12, 2006 11:29:47




LOG IN TO REPLY
timmyb
Member
Joined Oct 2005
85 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #5, Nov 12, 2006 11:54:52




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
19,821 posts
Hampshire, UK
[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 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.jpgexternal 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.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Post #6, Nov 12, 2006 11:58:00


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
DaveL
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
DaveL's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
827 posts
Southern NH
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Dave

Post #7, Nov 12, 2006 12:19:34 as a reply to timmyb's post 24 minutes earlier.


Canon 6D, 1D MKIII, 1D Classic
Canon 300 2.8L IS, 28-70L,16-35L II, 85mm 1/8, 50mm 1.4, 70-200 2.8L IS
Cheap Ebay strobes, softboxes
Gibson Guitars
Marshall Amps

LOG IN TO REPLY
liza
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2005
11,386 posts
Mayberry
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

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

Post #8, Nov 12, 2006 12:51:57



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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Permagrin
High Priestess of all I survey
Permagrin's Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
77,877 posts
day dreamin'
[MORE/SHARE]

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)....;)

Post #9, Nov 12, 2006 12:57:04 as a reply to liza's post 5 minutes earlier.


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Cameragirl58
Senior Member
Cameragirl58's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
338 posts
Somerset,UK
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos.

Post #10, Nov 12, 2006 13:02:14 as a reply to DaveL's post 42 minutes earlier.


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
Joined Nov 2006
5 posts
Oregon
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #11, Nov 12, 2006 14:23:42




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
Joined May 2005
22,033 posts
silicon valley
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #12, Nov 12, 2006 14:36:12


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/external link
http://erader.zenfolio​.com/external link
5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 24mm f2.8 ef-s, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY
ghms421
Senior Member
ghms421's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
471 posts
Bethesda,MD
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #13, Nov 12, 2006 14:40:22




LOG IN TO REPLY
GyRob
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2005
9,807 posts
N.E.LINCOLNSHIRE UK.
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #14, Nov 12, 2006 14:43:21


"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
Joined May 2005
22,033 posts
silicon valley
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #15, Nov 12, 2006 14:46:07


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/external link
http://erader.zenfolio​.com/external link
5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 24mm f2.8 ef-s, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
708,048 views & 0 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 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 0.00086 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
1053 guests, 853 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Sprint9169

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.