Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM

From a recent senior session. I'm finding this lens to me the most frequently used lately, if it wasn't so heavy I don't think it would ever come off!

We were going to take some ballet photos when we came across this beautiful field of wildflowers. The sun was still a bit too high for perfect light but we started shooting anyway. No fill at all, just all natural light.

[GALLERYIMAGE]: embed failed, id not found (image not in gallery any more)

Hi guys,

Would like to ask some noob questions here so please bear with me.

My daughter is growing up real fast and I would like to Capture portraits and moments that are all too fleeting. I currently using a 1D4 and have no immediate intention to change to a Ff camera.

Looking at the magical pictures here I have 3 options:-

1. Sell my 50L and 300L is mk1 for the 200 f2
2. Buy the 135L
3. Use the 300 for portraits

I would like to hazard a guess that the 200 f2 would be the best but charts and dxo stuff aside, how discernible is it in the real world?

Thank you for helping this excited new father!

P.s stalking this thread is not helping my resolve

If you look at comparisons of the 200/2 and the 70-200/2.8 IS II @ 200mm the difference is there but very, very minimal.

I would think that the fast versatility and prime-like quality of the 70-200 f2.8L IS II would exceed the slight edge in bokeh and make a fantastic choice for energetic kids and portraits. Also a hell of a lot cheaper and much smaller.

Edit: I don't think selling off multiple focal lengths to buy one prime is a good idea unless you have redundancy at those focal lengths.

renaissance_myth wrote in post #18503936
Hi guys,

Would like to ask some noob questions here so please bear with me.

My daughter is growing up real fast and I would like to Capture portraits and moments that are all too fleeting. I currently using a 1D4 and have no immediate intention to change to a Ff camera.

Looking at the magical pictures here I have 3 options:-

1. Sell my 50L and 300L is mk1 for the 200 f2
2. Buy the 135L
3. Use the 300 for portraits

I would like to hazard a guess that the 200 f2 would be the best but charts and dxo stuff aside, how discernible is it in the real world?

Thank you for helping this excited new father!

P.s stalking this thread is not helping my resolve

Being as the 135L is so cheap these days(I think there's 2 under $700 on here right now) I'd buy that. It's extremely light, very sharp, has very quick AF for your moving kid(I find it works very well in AI SERVO), and has very good separation of subject to background at f2. IF you feel you really want to stand further away from them while you shoot, you shouldn't have a hard time selling it and making your money back to purchase the 200f2. Being on a 1.3x body, you're going to have to stand pretty darn far away with either the 200 or 300. Playing around at a park won't be an issue but you'll be yelling posing directions if your plan is to take actual portraits with either of those lenses. 135L @ 175mm FOVCF already requires you stand pretty far back for full body.
Then you'd have a 50,135,300 giving you a great range of FL to use on all sorts of types of work.

There is someone(FTB I think) selling a used 200f2 for pretty damn cheap($4200ish). Not sure if he sold it yet.

renaissance_myth wrote in post #18503936
Hi guys,

Would like to ask some noob questions here so please bear with me.

My daughter is growing up real fast and I would like to Capture portraits and moments that are all too fleeting. I currently using a 1D4 and have no immediate intention to change to a Ff camera.

Looking at the magical pictures here I have 3 options:-

1. Sell my 50L and 300L is mk1 for the 200 f2
2. Buy the 135L
3. Use the 300 for portraits

I would like to hazard a guess that the 200 f2 would be the best but charts and dxo stuff aside, how discernible is it in the real world?

Thank you for helping this excited new father!

P.s stalking this thread is not helping my resolve

If you really want to be with your daughter and capture moments and memories, you want to be up in it, connected, part of it, and be able to hand it to someone else so you can have yourself with your daughter too. Keep your 50L. You'll use it more than any other lens with a child that you currently have.

Or, you can run 20+ feet away all the time just to get an obliterated background. Babies don't like being outside without a parent holding them for quite a few years. You'll spend a LOT more time inside, in close quarters. Keep that 50L.

In 2~3 years, you may want a telephoto when she's walking and able to do stuff outside.

By all means, get a medium telephoto, like the 135L or 200L, they're awesome and for formal portraits you'll love what they render, but they are not going to do much for you for the first 2 years of your daughter's life. You have plenty of time!

Come over to the Family Photojournalism Thread, see what it looks like to have kids. Changed how I shoot completely for every day memories. We still do formal stuff that is nice, using things like the 135L, etc, but still, that's not every day. And you will want to remember the special every day stuff, not just the posed stuff.

Very best,

renaissance_myth wrote in post #18503936
Hi guys,

Would like to ask some noob questions here so please bear with me.

My daughter is growing up real fast and I would like to Capture portraits and moments that are all too fleeting. I currently using a 1D4 and have no immediate intention to change to a Ff camera.

Looking at the magical pictures here I have 3 options:-

1. Sell my 50L and 300L is mk1 for the 200 f2
2. Buy the 135L
3. Use the 300 for portraits

I would like to hazard a guess that the 200 f2 would be the best but charts and dxo stuff aside, how discernible is it in the real world?

Thank you for helping this excited new father!

P.s stalking this thread is not helping my resolve

I would absolutely positively without question advise getting the 135mm for about $800.00!!!

I have owned TWO 200mm f/1.8s and currently own the f/2.
And yet, my 2006 vintage 135mm has seen orders of magnitude more time on my cameras than the other 3 combined!

No it is not the equivalent of one of these dream machines, but it is so close on so many levels while at the same time being MUCH more useful, portable, usable in more situations.

Get the 135mm!
(Sorry to post this in the 200mm thread, but it's the plain truth!)

Logic -- hard to beat the 135 f2. Love it.

Emotion -- hard to beat the 200mm f2. Love it.

Pick yer poison

Thank you all for your insights. I have not personally used the 135L or the 200L f2 but going through the two lenses' sample pictures (mostly taken on FF cameras) they do look quite similar to me with the 200L being more 'creamy'? no examples on the 1.3 crop that I can see so far.


I use mostly the 24L or the Samyang 14mm f2.8 for indoor pictures that show more of the environment and the 50L is only for if I want closeups.


Where I am from its USD$570 (135L) vs USD$4300(200L) used.

I guess its really down to logic vs emotion and how I can stomach that rate of diminishing return

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18504145
I would absolutely positively without question advise getting the 135mm for about $800.00!!!

I have owned TWO 200mm f/1.8s and currently own the f/2.
And yet, my 2006 vintage 135mm has seen orders of magnitude more time on my cameras than the other 3 combined!

No it is not the equivalent of one of these dream machines, but it is so close on so many levels while at the same time being MUCH more useful, portable, usable in more situations.

Get the 135mm!
(Sorry to post this in the 200mm thread, but it's the plain truth!)

I 100% agree with this. I own both and they each have their place. For chasing small children, especially indoors, it's for sure the 135.

Scott

scobols wrote in post #18504298
I 100% agree with this. I own both and they each have their place. For chasing small children, especially indoors, it's for sure the 135.

Scott

Chasing small children inside = 85mm

It’s easy to say 135 for those who have never used the 200...

Use the 200 and you’ll see why it favors over the 135.

It’s not for the weak though.

135L is sure great lens but 200L is some other beast. You can not compare that two lens in terms of sharpness, af tracking, render, contrast and look "character". Tru is that 135 gonna be better for chasing children but 200l is truly best lens I have ever use in any terms

The lens has been shelved for a few weeks but I was able to get it out again this weekend.

I use mine to chase my children. Just not as often as the 135L, which I use for other than my children.