200L Mk II what's it good for?

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?

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?

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).

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...

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

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.

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
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.

robonrome wrote in post #8629553
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.

kito109654 wrote in post #8629576
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?

robonrome wrote in post #8629553
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.

robonrome wrote in post #8629633
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

robonrome wrote in post #8629633
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.

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).

TweakMDS wrote in post #8630068
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 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

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