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 15 Jan 2013 (Tuesday) 19:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

200 2.8L usefull?

 
arheo
Member
52 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 15, 2013 19:56 |  #1

I use 17-40, 85/1.8, 24-105 on my 5d
And now i thinkig about new lens 200 2.8l because 105 is sometimes to short, and because i plan to make some portrait with creamy bokeh.
70-200 lenses are too big for me, i love to walking-travel-mountaineerring, and expensiv specially markII...so 200L is look fine for me...it opticly great, relativy compact, and maybe once i could pair it with 1.4x or 2x converter and get a long tele lens .

But i am doubt is this focal lenght useful....for what you who owe this lens use it.....and how often.

I am affraid that it will stay most time in my bag :/

So dillema is : comact and cheaper 200/2.8 or havier and expensv 70-200/2.8 or just to get 70-300is ?


Canon 6D, 17-40L, 24-105L, 35L, 85/1.8, 200L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Jan 15, 2013 20:04 |  #2

200 mm is long for many day-to-day uses. I shoot a lot of sports and 200 is too short but when I'm not shooting sports, the long glass stays in the bag.

Still, the 200 f/2.8 is a very nice lens. I'd like to get another.

I had one a few years ago. Found it was no better or worse optically than the 70-200 f2.8 zoom at 200. Also found that my 135L plus 1.4TC pretty much did what the 200 f/2.8 did so I sold the 200 prime and kept the 135L and 70-200.

A few years later, I've sold my big heavy 70-200 and am once again thinking I'd like the 200 prime.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dnauer
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 27
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Colorado
     
Jan 15, 2013 20:10 |  #3

I"m using a 40D and find this lens useful for photography of my dogs and for dog agiilty (across the arena). I also own a 70-300L so my 200 2.8L gets less use, but the bokeh, incredible focus speed, and size make this a great lens. I recently rented a 6D for 5 days and this lens just sang on it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chrisd999
Member
99 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
     
Jan 15, 2013 20:52 |  #4

I've tested the 200L in my local camera shop, and this is an astounding lens sharpness-wise. I tested it also with a Kenko 2X TC, and the IQ was really degraded in comparison. Not sure how the 1.4X TC would fare. In any event, for me, 200mm is a really odd FL, and because of that it would not get much use. It's too long for portraits, and it's too short for wildlife or airshows, which I also enjoy. I think it would be useful for indoor sports (ice hockey, basketball, etc.), but that's not something I shoot.


Sony A7R | 24mm TS-E II f/3.5L | T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS | FE 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 OSS | T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA| Samyang 85mm f1.4 | Minolta 70-210 Beercan | Metabones IV | LA-EA4
Sony A6000 | SEL1018 f/4 OSS | SEL24Z f/1.8 | SEL55210 f/3.5-6.3 OSS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lmbnk
Member
98 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Bandung, Indonesia
     
Jan 15, 2013 21:29 |  #5

Why don't you just buy 135L and TC 1.4x

You can shot at 135mm with f/2, and with TC 1.4x you can shot at 189mm (nearly 200mm) with f/2.8 :D


5DII | Sigma 35 1.4 | Canon 50 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 15, 2013 21:43 |  #6

I have been using my 200L quite a bit lately. It was very cheap (bought used), light, inconspicuous when compared to the 70-200L f/2.8, and has fantastic IQ. I add a close-up lens and it turns into a 200mm macro.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Jan 15, 2013 21:59 |  #7

The 200L is a great lens. Super sharp. Super fast focusing. Great bokeh. It just doesnt have image stabilization... which was the deal breaker for me. I would have to shoot the 200L at 1/320 or faster to get sharp portraits with no hand shake. A lens like the 70-200 f2.8 IS II or a 70-200 2.8 OS would let you shoot portraits at 1/80 which is 2 full stops faster. That's iso100 vs iso400.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FatPete
Senior Member
Avatar
279 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Blackpool, UK
     
Jan 16, 2013 02:35 |  #8

I picked up the MK I version of this lens a few years back on this forum, and foolishly didn't even use it for the first 6 months.

However once I started taking photos I was astounded at how sharp it was (even more so with the lens being approx 20 years old).

The lack of IS was a major pain - even mounted on a tripod it was sometimes hard to keep steady on a windy promenade. But it was smaller than the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms and didn't make me look as conspicuous, so that was a bonus.

Had to sell it last year to pay the rent, but would happily buy one again if I couldn't stretch to the cost of an IS zoom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arheo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 16, 2013 05:44 as a reply to  @ FatPete's post |  #9

Thnx for answers.

Yea i think about 135/2 but i allready have 85/1.8 so i guess that 200 would give me something more different.
200 is a great lens, but like somebody say its too long for portrait and short for bird, and that is what bother me - focal lenght really constrain...but i really like the size of lens :)
I hate big and heavy equipment.....sometime​s i consider to sell all canon and buy some 4/3 system ....which i dont do offcourse :)


Canon 6D, 17-40L, 24-105L, 35L, 85/1.8, 200L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
leftnose
Member
Avatar
65 posts
Joined May 2012
     
Jan 16, 2013 07:03 |  #10

200 might be too different from 85. 85 and 135, OTOH, is a classic combo.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pax2You
Goldmember
Avatar
1,208 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 2806
Joined Oct 2011
     
Jan 16, 2013 10:21 as a reply to  @ leftnose's post |  #11

It all depends on the situation. I use a 200mm 2.8L II with and without teleconverters with great success. Focus speed is excellent without the extender and still fast enough for birds/bugs in flight with the 2x II extender. It can also make an 800mm lens when you stack 2x converters.
Alone

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6454958119_726e810e1b_b.jpg

(Thats a removeable radio tracking tag on the back of the African Yellow Billed Kite)
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7194/6781285166_c3e542d9e7_b.jpg

With the 2x II extender
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7243/6932235368_533405dde0_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8313/8017226361_1f06208d1f_b.jpg

With stacked 2x II extender and 2x Kenko MC4 DGX using autofocus (CD) in Live-view on a 7D with remote shutter release and tripod (last two have not been cropped)
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8030/8047509250_5709859ff5_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7091/7272507256_562182da8f_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8155/7272499434_2192793341_b.jpg

Panasonic G9, Panaleica 100-400, Samyang 12mm F2 NCS CS, Sigma APO 2x DG EX TC, Tiffen aXent ND 3.0 (ND1000) filter, Olympus OMD E-M5, Oly 14-42mm, Oly 12-50mm, ZEQ25gt Mount, plus a few other lenses, extension tubes, and general mish-mash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xcelx
Senior Member
558 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jan 16, 2013 10:48 |  #12

I had the 200 for crop a couple of years ago and never really liked the focal length for my work. Once I went full frame I've got way more use out of it. It's my favorite lens for outdoor pet photography and portraits when I have the working distance.

I'd love to have IS but couldn't justify spending 3x more for the 70-200 II since I really wanted 200mm. personally I value the sharpness and fast aperture of the lens the most. The lightness of the lens is really nice as well. I have the 85mm 1.8 when I don't have the working space for portraits.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xcelx
Senior Member
558 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jan 16, 2013 11:28 |  #13

Ah, what the heck, I'll just post some portrait samples as well.

IMAGE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32231899/POTN/200%20samples/IMG_1221.jpg

IMAGE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32231899/POTN/200%20samples/IMG_1229.jpg


IMAGE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32231899/POTN/200%20samples/IMG_1200.jpg


Does pretty well with a busy background and foreground also.
IMAGE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32231899/POTN/200%20samples/IMG_7078.jpg

IMAGE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32231899/POTN/200%20samples/IMG_7115.jpg

IMAGE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32231899/POTN/200%20samples/IMG_6051.jpg

IMAGE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32231899/POTN/200%20samples/IMG_6864.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bearmann
Goldmember
Avatar
1,226 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2008
Location: I live behind Graceland in a tool shed. I often meet the man early in the morning at Krispy Kreme.
     
Jan 16, 2013 11:51 |  #14

It's an unusual lens which I've considered in the distant past, but never owned. I think it may be the only Canon prime in which you don't gain anything in aperture versus the zoom. Of course, you do gain in lightness. Personally, I wouldn't want anything longer than my 135L if it didn't have IS, unless I was just getting some kind of super deal on it.


Barry

http://b-r-s-photo.zenfolio.com (external link) (remove the dashes)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,039 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 400
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 16, 2013 14:58 as a reply to  @ Bearmann's post |  #15

useful in a limited way. canon's 70-200L zooms are untouchable and are MUCH more useful.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

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

3,629 views & 0 likes for this thread
200 2.8L usefull?
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 Charis
799 guests, 251 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.