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 12 Sep 2009 (Saturday) 00:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

200L Mk II what's it good for?

 
robonrome
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 00:39 |  #1

Hi All, I was considering investing in one of these as a supplement to my 70-300IS when I needed a faster lens both in aperture and focus speed. To be used on the 5D2.

My only concern is whether I'd feel constricted by the prime. I wondered what people use this focal length for mostly? I was thinking portraiture and candids and some sports (son plays futzal). Maybe even as a light long lens for my landscape passion to pick out details in the landscape.

I take it the AF is pretty fast?


rob - check my galleries at http://hardlightimages​.zenfolio.com/ (external link)
Zenfolio coupon discount when signing up - 93R-NCK-DUT
_______________
Canon 5D Mkiii; Sony RX100; Lumix G5; 17-40L; 24L TS-E F3.5 Mk2; 24-105L IS; 40 F2.8; 135L; 70-200L F2.8 IS MkII; Ext II 1.4x; 580 exII; 270 ex... other filtery stuff:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lawlz_xD
Senior Member
309 posts
Likes: 89
Joined Mar 2009
     
Sep 12, 2009 00:50 |  #2

I don't own the lense but I can't see a 200mm prime being used very efficiently in sports. 200mm is a hard focal length to work with in that area of photography...if you're looking at sports maybe consider the 70-200mm?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cesium
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
     
Sep 12, 2009 01:06 |  #3

I recently picked one up and plan on using it mainly for motorsports. I was using a 55-250 before but it proved to be too slow in the later hours and the AF was lacking. The prime should solve both of these issues.

I'm sure there are plenty of other uses for this lens, as long as you are in an area where you can position yourself for the right framing (outdoors).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,407 posts
Gallery: 588 photos
Likes: 2859
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 12, 2009 01:07 |  #4

The AF is VERY fast on this lens

As for what its used for, A lot of things really, candids are a great thing, the big advantage it has over a 70-200 is its small, light black and quick [versus the f/4s at least]

I used it for shots of flowers for a long time, it was an impressive piece of glass, very sharp and VERY versatile...

would be great for sports, Especially as it wont draw attention as much as the bigger lenses...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
5,170 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Jun 2005
Location: san jose
     
Sep 12, 2009 01:13 |  #5

Good for sports, street candids or even portraits...many uses


Sonny
website (external link)|Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Sep 12, 2009 01:30 |  #6

I found 200mm to be in the middle of nowhere. AF speed is incredibly fast (seriously), great bokeh, great-looking images...but it's way too short for field sports, I think still too short for motorsports, way too short for birds or wildlife, and too long for indoor portraiture. I didn't like the perspective I got with the images, either, just too much like I'm on the outside looking in, like I'm a spy or something.

I think its uses are limited to indoor sports (or anything not on a remotely large field) and outdoor portraiture/candids with some serious subject isolation. And landscapes, I guess I should say.

So, for me, I'd rather have a 135mm (for portraits and somewhat-distant people shots), and then a 300 or 400 for whatever applications need the reach.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robonrome
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 01:40 |  #7

thanks all,

what's said below is I guess what I was a little afraid of, too short for some things and too long for others. I was also considering the 135L, but thought it doesn't really give me much over my 24-105 in reach. Too short for candids you think?

toxic wrote in post #8629519 (external link)
I found 200mm to be in the middle of nowhere. AF speed is incredibly fast (seriously), great bokeh, great-looking images...but it's way too short for field sports, I think still too short for motorsports, way too short for birds or wildlife, and too long for indoor portraiture. I didn't like the perspective I got with the images, either, just too much like I'm on the outside looking in, like I'm a spy or something.

I think its uses are limited to indoor sports (or anything not on a remotely large field) and outdoor portraiture/candids with some serious subject isolation. And landscapes, I guess I should say.

So, for me, I'd rather have a 135mm (for portraits and somewhat-distant people shots), and then a 300 or 400 for whatever applications need the reach.


rob - check my galleries at http://hardlightimages​.zenfolio.com/ (external link)
Zenfolio coupon discount when signing up - 93R-NCK-DUT
_______________
Canon 5D Mkiii; Sony RX100; Lumix G5; 17-40L; 24L TS-E F3.5 Mk2; 24-105L IS; 40 F2.8; 135L; 70-200L F2.8 IS MkII; Ext II 1.4x; 580 exII; 270 ex... other filtery stuff:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kito109654
Member
Avatar
139 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Lynnwood, WA
     
Sep 12, 2009 01:49 |  #8

robonrome wrote in post #8629553 (external link)
thanks all,

what's said below is I guess what I was a little afraid of, too short for some things and too long for others. I was also considering the 135L, but thought it doesn't really give me much over my 24-105 in reach. Too short for candids you think?

Teleconverters are an amazing thing and fast, longish primes is where they work the best.


-Brandon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robonrome
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 02:11 |  #9

kito109654 wrote in post #8629576 (external link)
Teleconverters are an amazing thing and fast, longish primes is where they work the best.

Good Point!! I wonder how the 135L goes with the 2x converter?


rob - check my galleries at http://hardlightimages​.zenfolio.com/ (external link)
Zenfolio coupon discount when signing up - 93R-NCK-DUT
_______________
Canon 5D Mkiii; Sony RX100; Lumix G5; 17-40L; 24L TS-E F3.5 Mk2; 24-105L IS; 40 F2.8; 135L; 70-200L F2.8 IS MkII; Ext II 1.4x; 580 exII; 270 ex... other filtery stuff:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 44
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 12, 2009 02:31 |  #10

robonrome wrote in post #8629553 (external link)
thanks all,

what's said below is I guess what I was a little afraid of, too short for some things and too long for others. I was also considering the 135L, but thought it doesn't really give me much over my 24-105 in reach. Too short for candids you think?

The 135L is perfect for candids, IMHO. Since it's nice and fast you don't have to worry about using a flash in most circumstances. No flash means no attention grabbing pulses of light from your direction.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kito109654
Member
Avatar
139 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Lynnwood, WA
     
Sep 12, 2009 03:43 |  #11

robonrome wrote in post #8629633 (external link)
Good Point!! I wonder how the 135L goes with the 2x converter?

I don't know first hand but I hear very well. Sample pictures look good enough to me. A 1.4 extender would make it an effective 190ish mm and f/2.8 (and raise the cost) so that might be the more versatile choice.

Edit. Oops, you said 2x. I haven't looked at samples of that...doesn't really interest me since that would slow it down to f/4


-Brandon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Sep 12, 2009 04:01 |  #12

robonrome wrote in post #8629633 (external link)
Good Point!! I wonder how the 135L goes with the 2x converter?

Not that well, though not terrible. A 2x on a 200/2.8 actually looks better on digital-picture, but one stop slower... If you really need reach, though (I've no idea what futzal is), I think you're better off getting a 300/4 or 400/5.6.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TweakMDS
Goldmember
Avatar
2,242 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Sep 12, 2009 05:52 |  #13

I played futzal for a few years, it's an indoor soccer variant. The motion is FAST, a lot of turning and quick passes, but the fields are relatively small, and the audience - if any - is pretty close to the action. If you take anything longer than 200mm there, I think you'll already be around portrait lengths.

I think a 200mm F2.8 and a 85 1.8 would be a great combo for futzal, but they might not beat the versatility of a 70-200 2.8 (IS).


Some of my lenses focus beyond infinity...!
~Michael
Gear | Flickr (external link)
"My featured shots" (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robonrome
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 06:51 |  #14

TweakMDS wrote in post #8630068 (external link)
I played futzal for a few years, it's an indoor soccer variant. The motion is FAST, a lot of turning and quick passes, but the fields are relatively small, and the audience - if any - is pretty close to the action. If you take anything longer than 200mm there, I think you'll already be around portrait lengths.

I think a 200mm F2.8 and a 85 1.8 would be a great combo for futzal, but they might not beat the versatility of a 70-200 2.8 (IS).

so maybe 135mm would be a good in the middle compromise? I just sold my 85 1.8:rolleyes: I hand't tried it for futzal yet, but thought it a bit short ... if the 135 is fast AF and works well with 1.4 x I might try that combo


rob - check my galleries at http://hardlightimages​.zenfolio.com/ (external link)
Zenfolio coupon discount when signing up - 93R-NCK-DUT
_______________
Canon 5D Mkiii; Sony RX100; Lumix G5; 17-40L; 24L TS-E F3.5 Mk2; 24-105L IS; 40 F2.8; 135L; 70-200L F2.8 IS MkII; Ext II 1.4x; 580 exII; 270 ex... other filtery stuff:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 44
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 12, 2009 06:57 |  #15

The 135L is very fast. I have no first hand experience with a tcon on it though.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

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

2,758 views & 0 likes for this thread
200L Mk II what's it good for?
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 silviull
337 guests, 172 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.