Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 May 2011 (Sunday) 11:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

200 2.8L for low light shooting

 
noahcomet
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
May 29, 2011 11:37 |  #1

I'm pondering adding this prime to my kit and am wondering what folks think about it as a low-light lens. My kit right now is a 7D with the 400 5.6L and the 35L. I'm looking for something in the middle that'll allow me to do wildlife (etc) in low light, which the 400L just can't do. The 7D is just so noisy at/above ISO 800, so I'm looking for something relatively long and fast that's below 1k. The 70-200 4 will be too slow, I think, and the 2.8 of that lens would be out of my price range. (Plus I prefer primes.)

Anyone else using the lens like this?

Thanks!


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
May 29, 2011 11:39 |  #2

if 200mm and f2.8 will work, it is a great lens.

Do keep in mind that Sigma sells a 70-200 f2.8 zoom with ring USM AF for the same price, so you could have 70-200mm coverage for the same price. Just throwing that out there since you said you have a hole from 35 to 400 now.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bob_r
Goldmember
2,452 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 663
Joined Aug 2006
Location: West Tennessee, USA
     
May 29, 2011 16:23 |  #3

You don't mention the type of wildlife, but 200mm is rather short for most wildlife. I love using the 200 at the zoo, but have never selected it with the intent to shoot wildlife. My 100-400 is normally the lens I select for wildlife and because of it's IS, it can still get acceptable handheld results when the shutter speed is just too slow for a 200 or 400 prime (I used to own the 400L too). Are you using a tripod for your shots? Would a lens with IS help you reduce your ISO settings?

Here's a sample low-light, handheld shot taken with the 100-400 just before sun rise (and through a storm door!). There's no way I could have taken this shot with a 400L without a tripod.

1/30s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/88128106.jpg

Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 683
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
May 29, 2011 16:39 |  #4

Great lens, VERY sharp. No IS though so you'll mostly want to go with a tripod if shooting low light. But you might have to do a lot of cropping if you are shooting wildlife with a 200mm lens.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,513 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
May 29, 2011 20:03 |  #5

It certainly is a very sharp lens, even at 2.8 which makes it a great lens for low light events. I think its the best bang for the buck L lens out there.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hairyjames
Senior Member
Avatar
422 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 47
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 29, 2011 20:08 |  #6

It is an incredible lens in any light, one of Canon's best looking for sure.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
May 29, 2011 20:41 |  #7

How about ditching the 400/5.6 in favor of a lens with a stabilizer that also reaches 400mm and f/5.6? There is the 100-400L as well as several 3rd party choices.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noahcomet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
May 29, 2011 21:03 |  #8

Thanks to everyone who's responded. To be more specific, I'm thinking about (for example) the bears I'm likely to see around dusk this summer in the Adirondacks. Probably about 50-100 feet off in low light. I wouldn't use the 200 for birds---that's what the 400's for.

I don't think I'd seriously consider swapping the 400 for 100-400 IS---while IS is nice, I've just gotten spoiled with the primes.

Sounds like the 200's a winner, as I suspected.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dillan_K
Goldmember
Avatar
1,105 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 368
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Calgary Canada
     
May 29, 2011 22:11 as a reply to  @ noahcomet's post |  #9

It seems like the 200 f/2.8L is becoming more popular. It was on my list for a long time, but I felt a bit like a pariah desiring the lens. Everyone wants the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. This lens is relatively fast, relatively light, and yet it's still black. I think that if I had a 70-200 zoom, I'd probably have it at 200mm 95% of the time anyway, so why not by the prime? The price is really great for the focal length. If you can use it, I say, buy it! In the end, I did not buy it. I went for something a little longer . . . . the 300mm f/4L IS! My needs were different. Like I say, if the length is right, buy it.


Gear: Canon 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 300mm f/4L IS, 5D, Elan 7, 420EX, Metz 52 AF-1
flickr (external link)

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

1,292 views & 0 likes for this thread
200 2.8L for low light shooting
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is zsolt79
1369 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.