New 200 2.8 II coming

I ordered this prime today , and it should arrive tomorrow. I have to say I'm little excited to see this lens. It should be good fit with my 17 -50 tam, and 135L. Nice way to beat the winter blues I ordered a Kenko 1.4 tele too, they must have updated from the old one?

Sorry , I didnt mean to mislead. Its the 200 L thats been around quite awhile.

congrats, great lens, have fun

Saw this thread on the main forum page and thought..."wouldn't that be a 200 2.8 III then?" Then realized this was the lens forum and not the rumor forum.

It's late here

I'd love to know on that Kenko Tele works with it. I love my 200m f2.8 II -- it is a great lens! -- Dave

200mm f/2.8 with the Kenko Pro DGX 300 1.4x TC.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i81.photobucket​.com …6/lannes2007/IM​G_6503.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i81.photobucket​.com …6/lannes2007/IM​G_6507.jpg

Great lens. One of the least talked-about L lenses, but its IQ often leaves people speechless. Huge bang for buck. Enjoy!

Yes, IQ is great, so good it hardly notices a 1.4X, still very usable with the 2X although the 2X slows the AF a lot. Worth thiking about a TC to extend you range further.

Another useful tool is a set of extension tubes to focus closer, makes a great flower lens then.

Enjoy!

professoryeti wrote in post #11708716
Saw this thread on the main forum page and thought..."wouldn't that be a 200 2.8 III then?" Then realized this was the lens forum and not the rumor forum.

It's late here

Same To be fair, his wording is fairly ambiguous.

I just wanted to do a comparision myself, and I decided to share the results. I love primes but wanted to compare agains 70-200 (specially in terms of weight)

200 2.8 749US. 762gr
135 2.0 989US. 744 gr
Total: 1.738US. 1.506 gr

VS

70-200 2.8 IS II 2.299 US. 1490gr
(I am not comparing to 70-200 Non-IS, 1.329US and similar weight)

If you love the image quality of the 135mm 2.0, you'll love the image quality of the 200mm 2.8. The black beauty is a remarkable lens.

Sweet

I had the Mk1 and they are identical and you won't be disappointed!

The Contrast and focus speed are amazing so is the sharpness!

Good work

i need one of these....

Oh I got the kenko 1.4 not the 300 pro series. It was about 110.00. I hope it will be ok too
Maybe I should send it back to b n h and get the pro series.

Jules winnfield wrote in post #11709953
I just wanted to do a comparision myself, and I decided to share the results. I love primes but wanted to compare agains 70-200 (specially in terms of weight)

200 2.8 749US. 762gr
135 2.0 989US. 744 gr
Total: 1.738US. 1.506 gr

VS

70-200 2.8 IS II 2.299 US. 1490gr
(I am not comparing to 70-200 Non-IS, 1.329US and similar weight)

Who's the winner at 200mm 2.8 between 200L 2.8 and 70-200L II?

jenz wrote in post #11710933
Who's the winner at 200mm 2.8 between 200L 2.8 and 70-200L II?

Both seem to be equal in sharpness and contrast but I think the bokeh on the 200/2.8 is less busy and thus better.