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 Jun 2013 (Saturday) 21:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

200mm f/2 L IS Review (with 2x Extender III)

 
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 30, 2013 14:50 |  #16
bannedPermanent ban

drzenitram wrote in post #16078264 (external link)
It's not the size on different monitors that matters, it's just that you have to follow the forum rule

Yes, I realize that now, fixed all the images, I hope it's sufficient.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jun 30, 2013 14:55 |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

RickRandhawa wrote in post #16078092 (external link)
This is a great comparison LensGuy, thanks for taking the time to do this. The 200 f/2 is really an amazing lens. IQ is absolutely superb and this lens is the clear winner among the two...not that this was much of a surprise to me.

It's easier to tell the difference between the two lenses when you look at the focus charts, than when you look at the "real world" picture crops that you posted above. I'd imagine in a "normal" picture you'd be hard pressed to see any sort of difference between the two...thus highlighting how great the 70-200MKII really is, especially when put up against a $6000 prime lens.

P.S. You def should resize the images, but maybe provide links to the larger sized images...otherwise you might risk having the images deleted and this comparison will be useful to others that come across this.

I can easily spot a 200L image a mile away simply because of its creamy bokeh, thin DOF, and overall contrast. I really do not have to view the images 100% crop to see the difference. This is simply because I shoot 2.0 in one and 2.8 in the other. If both were 2.8, you could still tell the difference by looking at the bokeh and maybe colors.

The extender is a whole different story though, there I can easily tell which is which, regardless of what aperture is being used. I don't think the zoom is useful with the 2x at all. As I said, it's focus is also extremely slow.

The zoom is a perfectly fine lens to a lot of people who has (and will) never seen the prime pictures, it will be more than enough. I'd classify the zoom as a nice 90k-150k "sports" car such as an M5 or a Porsche whereas the prime is more in the exotics car category (if that makes sense):)

And by the way, when all said and done, the same argument of "not seeing the difference in real life pictures" can be said for so many lenses (Sigma vs Canon, Canon's own Mk1 lenses vs Mk2), you know what I'm talking about;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-g-
Horribly disfigured but learning to cope
12,517 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Dec 2007
     
Jul 01, 2013 00:00 |  #18

Can you post a photo of the lens cover you got with it?


.
Flickr (external link)--------------- Facebook (external link)--------------- Web (external link)--------------- Twitter (external link)
GENO.CA - Vancouver wedding photographer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,665 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Likes: 6296
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jul 01, 2013 00:26 |  #19

Nice rulers.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-g-
Horribly disfigured but learning to cope
12,517 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Dec 2007
     
Jul 01, 2013 00:27 |  #20

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16079755 (external link)
Nice rulers.

:-)


.
Flickr (external link)--------------- Facebook (external link)--------------- Web (external link)--------------- Twitter (external link)
GENO.CA - Vancouver wedding photographer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jul 01, 2013 06:47 |  #21
bannedPermanent ban

-g- wrote in post #16079706 (external link)
Can you post a photo of the lens cover you got with it?

Here :

IMAGE: http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/839/ns7m.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://imageshack.us/a​/img839/8561/ns7m.jpg  (external link)

Same as the ones that come with 300 & 400 2.8 Mk2 primes.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-g-
Horribly disfigured but learning to cope
12,517 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Dec 2007
     
Jul 01, 2013 14:04 |  #22

That's much better than the ugly thing I got!


.
Flickr (external link)--------------- Facebook (external link)--------------- Web (external link)--------------- Twitter (external link)
GENO.CA - Vancouver wedding photographer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jul 01, 2013 15:06 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

-g- wrote in post #16081266 (external link)
That's much better than the ugly thing I got!

Yes its really not bad and very sturdy. You might want to sell yours and buy this (used should not be too much).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thatkatmat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,340 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 197
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold
     
Jul 01, 2013 16:17 |  #24

I bought the Don Zeck lenscap, really nice not to have to use those cover thingy's....

FWIW.....I have the mkII extenders...I have no problems using either of them with the 200/2IS....I usually stop the 2x down to 5.6 for razor sharp images with just a hint of CA introduced.(Which, unless you zoom to 100% is not noticeable) and the 1.4x is fine wide open..


My Flickr (external link)
Stuff
"Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." -Jimmy Conway
a9, 12-24/4G, 24-70/2.8GM, 100-400GM, 25/2 Batis, 55/1.8ZA, 85 /1.8FE, 85LmkII, 135L...a6300,10-18/4, 16-50PZ, 18-105PZ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jul 01, 2013 18:51 |  #25

Thank you LensGuy for doing this. As you said there was not a lot of reviews for this lens when you're in the market for one, you end up reading the same ones over and over to make sure your 100% sure. Another 200L review is most welcome. The 200L sure does shine. I could easily tell the difference when I shoot with mine vs the 70-200L. Sure the zoom is a beast but the prime is a monster.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jul 01, 2013 19:27 |  #26
bannedPermanent ban

cdang wrote in post #16082049 (external link)
Thank you LensGuy for doing this. As you said there was not a lot of reviews for this lens when you're in the market for one, you end up reading the same ones over and over to make sure your 100% sure. Another 200L review is most welcome. The 200L sure does shine. I could easily tell the difference when I shoot with mine vs the 70-200L. Sure the zoom is a beast but the prime is a monster.

No problem, glad to be of service:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jul 09, 2013 14:41 |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

Comparing 200L to the big brother 300 2.8 II

I know this is something I left out in the first page, and I did so simply because you cannot compare FLs, if you need 200, you get 200, if you need 300, you get 300, but that being said, I know thing there may be merit in comparing the overall technology and the feel of two lenses.

I had the opportunity to shoot with both lenses back to back, both with or without extenders, both on a full frame camera and a crop camera and here are my observations:

* AF Speed : Identical. I could not tell them apart. I would think 200L is a little faster once the focus range is limited to the second 3.8 - Infinity setting, but extremely hard to tell them apart.

* IS Performance : Identical. 4 stops of IS gives me hand hold ability in both lenses. That being said, due to FL differences, what I can achieve using 1/15 with 200L, I can only do so using 1/30 with 300L, but that's expected.

* IS Noise : Now this is what I actually wanted to talk about most about two lenses. It's common misconception that the 300 & 400 Mk2 lenses are the "next gen" "Mk2" lenses with the new "IS". Very wrong. There is absolutely no difference that I could tell between 200L and 300L in terms of the first and last "click click" sounds of when the IS is engaged. The in between gyro moving noise is a tad quieter with 300, but it's impossible to tell them apart unless you stick your ear to the lens. What may have happened is, because of the 5d3 recall that happened with the 200L, Canon may have "upgraded" the IS units of the 200L to be something newer. This also may explain people with an older date code saying the 200L IS is noisy. It is louder yes than say a 70-200 IS II, but not louder than 300 Mk2. So people buying 200L in 2013 most likely got a free upgrade of an IS unit.

* 2x III Extender Performance : Very close in terms of AF speed, 200L does a tad better, most likely because of the extra stop advantage. In terms of sharpness, 200L does a lot better. What I can achieve with 5.6 in 200L, I had to go all the way to 7.1 or even 8.0. I'm not sure if it was my copy or if its simply the F2 vs F2.8. That being said, if I needed the reach, I would still take 300 over 200 because 600 vs 400 makes a huge difference. So that extra stop you need with 300 is really well worth it in my opinion. Both are still extremely useful.

I'm not sure if my "upgraded" 200L is the way it is (on par AF/IS performance with/without 2x Extender III compared to 300 Mk2) because of the recall or if all the 200Ls that way, but I wanted to clarify this as I think it may be helpful to people who are in the market to buy either lens.

Thanks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
p32shooter
Senior Member
713 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2007
     
Jul 10, 2013 09:37 |  #28

great info, have the 400do/500f4isv1/600f4 and love them - i don't have a need for the 300f2.8, but a 200f2 really shines in your review - possibly get one of those for the things other than birds and planes

really nice work you did


wants for Ls :D , now have 400do;500f4is,600f4 :cool::cool: off to birding and airshows:):):)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MDJAK
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
24,718 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 174
Joined Nov 2004
Location: New York
     
Jul 10, 2013 09:52 |  #29

LensGuy, you did yeoman's work, sir. I know how time consuming this type of test can be. I and the community appreciate your finely done and well written review.

That said, I ownED :-( the 200L f2 and sold it. My buddy Nicksan owned it twice and sold it twice. While there's no question as to it's wow factor, for most of us it's not worth the cost and size and weight over the very fine 70-200 II, which I know you also speak highly of. Now don't get me wrong, I do and did see a difference. I carried, well more appropriately lugged the 200L f2 up and down the streets of San Francisco for a solid week on vacation. I loved it in spite of it's heft. But once the version II of the 70-200 hit the market, the difference between the two lenses narrowed to the point that the 200 stayed home because of its weight and size.
I sold mine in mint condition for $4500 over a year and a half ago. I know used they now go north of 5K. Guess I should have held onto it longer. ;)

As to Cyberdyne's comment, he's still maturing. :lol: ;)

As to what seemed to be attacks for pics being too large, last time I looked those members weren't moderators, but what do I know.

mark




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jul 10, 2013 14:40 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

MDJAK wrote in post #16107672 (external link)
LensGuy, you did yeoman's work, sir. I know how time consuming this type of test can be. I and the community appreciate your finely done and well written review.

That said, I ownED :-( the 200L f2 and sold it. My buddy Nicksan owned it twice and sold it twice. While there's no question as to it's wow factor, for most of us it's not worth the cost and size and weight over the very fine 70-200 II, which I know you also speak highly of. Now don't get me wrong, I do and did see a difference. I carried, well more appropriately lugged the 200L f2 up and down the streets of San Francisco for a solid week on vacation. I loved it in spite of it's heft. But once the version II of the 70-200 hit the market, the difference between the two lenses narrowed to the point that the 200 stayed home because of its weight and size.
I sold mine in mint condition for $4500 over a year and a half ago. I know used they now go north of 5K. Guess I should have held onto it longer. ;)

As to Cyberdyne's comment, he's still maturing. :lol: ;)

As to what seemed to be attacks for pics being too large, last time I looked those members weren't moderators, but what do I know.

mark

I'm glad to be of service:)

For me it is quite the opposite, I just don't use my zoom anymore. For almost 3 weeks now, I haven't used it. If I were a wedding or events photographer who does this for money and not fun and had to hand hold these lenses for hours, it would be different. In that case my clients who probably cannot tell the difference between the two is what matters and I care about making money as efficiently as possible.

But my case is not like that. I do this for fun and I control all the above variables. If I get tired, I can take a break. I dont have to have all the shots for the sake of f2 and 3d effect, I am okay with missing 3 shots out of 5. I take pictures for myself and I can see the difference and that's what matters:)

Crop or no crop, I can tell the difference easily; )




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

5,758 views & 0 likes for this thread
200mm f/2 L IS Review (with 2x Extender III)
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 marchuntington
924 guests, 334 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.