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?

 
nightcat
Goldmember
4,532 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Sep 12, 2009 07:13 |  #16

The 135mm I believe to be the sharpest lens Canon makes, but in every test I read about, the 135mm with the 1.4 extender can't match the IQ of the 200mm 2.8 L. I have the 200mm. It is a GREAT lens and I use it for many things. For sports... hockey football, baseball, etc. Its also a great length for candids and nature, but it also makes a great lens for long portraits. The creamy bokeh and the compression make for a nice portrait combination. I think its a great focal length for a variety of uses. The 70-200mm zooms are great, but they're heavier and more expensive. The 200mm 2.8 is also sharper wide open, and its black which is better for candid photography.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
robonrome
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 07:26 |  #17

nightcat wrote in post #8630258 (external link)
, and its black which is better for candid photography.

thanks, this is actually a big thing for me, I really don't like the big white lenses that scream look at me. I prefer to keep a low-ish profile if possible - actually that's one of the things I love about my G10 (but that's another story).

I'm hung up now between these two lenses the 135 and the 200. Hmmm don't s'pose their much else to separate them, both about the same size and weight. The 200 is cheaper by a fair bit (at least here) any other thoughts?


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: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 12, 2009 07:32 |  #18

f/2 is a stop faster than f/2.8. Double your shutter speed, double your fun!

That's my only other thought. :D


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
minliu2k
Member
36 posts
Joined Dec 2007
     
Sep 12, 2009 08:35 |  #19

Since both 135 and 200 are prime, you have to move around to put the subject in frame. I have more chance to miss a shot because the subject is too close and has to back out much more with 200. 200 is my first L lens and I love it but it is not as practical compared to 135. my 2 cents.


5D2, 16-35/f2.8L, 35/f1.4L, 85/f1.8, 135/f2L, 70-200/f4L, 70-200/f2.8L, Zeiss 21mm, Voigtl'ader 125mm/f2.5,
430EX II
Canon 40D EF-S 10-22, 17-55/f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,558 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Sep 12, 2009 09:02 |  #20

I owned one for a while, but couldn't justify keeping it. It came in handy when I needed 200mm and f/2.8, but that was rare where 200 and f/4 wouldn't cut it, but f/2.8 would. As mentioned, AF is lightning fast on this lens. Fastest AF I've used, and I own the 70-200 f/4 IS and 100 f/2, and have owned the 135 f/2L in the past, all of which have very fast AF, but don't hold a candle to the 200L's focus speed. It's press and the AF is locked...supremely quick. IQ is excellent, though no better than my 70-200 f/4 IS (though that's high praise...sharpest zoom I've ever used).


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary2027
Member
148 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2009
     
Sep 12, 2009 09:19 |  #21

135 f2 and 200 f2.8, both fine lenses. You'll get 189mm or 280mm with the 1.4x, and image quality still looks very good.

The 200 can be very useful for outdoor sports events, especially if you're photographing kids since they usually play on smaller fields.

Soccer, T-Ball, Little League Baseball, Jr Football, Tennis, swimming. Bring along the 1.4x and you'll have nearly 300mm at f4. Plenty of reach for youth daytime sports.

The 135 can be a great indoor sports lens, volleyball, basketball. Outdoors also if you're close to the action, or add the 1.4x for 189mm.

I use the 200 f2.8 as the "shorter" lens on a second camera when shooting sports. I tried a 70-200 zoom for that also, but found I was nearly always shooting at 200mm. So the prime is lighter, smaller and easier to hang off the shoulder.

It's a great outdoor candid photo lens too. Plenty of reach.

And who said you can't shoot wildlife with a 200mm lens? This is 200mm. Not captive, he had cornered a squirrel in the tree and was ready to stare me down to stay there. Cropped.

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/gary/image/81850465/original.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robonrome
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 15:35 |  #22

Thanks all, seems I can't go too far wrong with either lens...and Gary that's one wicked raptor stare, well done!


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
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,376 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2674
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 12, 2009 18:00 as a reply to  @ robonrome's post |  #23

^- seconded, i nailed this with my 200mm f/2.8L

Keep in mind how TINY these guys are! ;)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i891.photobucke​t.com …ography/IMG_408​4-Edit.jpg (external link)


And this is just a personal favorite of mine from my 200mm f/2.8L II...

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i891.photobucke​t.com …iPhotography/IM​G_2990.jpg (external link)

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
Quad
Goldmember
Avatar
1,872 posts
Joined Nov 2005
     
Sep 12, 2009 18:42 |  #24

robonrome wrote in post #8629322 (external link)
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?


To quote LL a 200 prime is:

"Lightweight and easy to carry. May project a certain “image,” i.e. that you are poor or cheap."


For more tips on what various lenses (or possibly leneses in this particular case) are good for see here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/​sm-august-04.shtml (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bob_r
Goldmember
2,473 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 718
Joined Aug 2006
Location: West Tennessee, USA
     
Sep 12, 2009 18:57 |  #25

I don't think you should consider a 200L or a 135L, but a 200L AND a 135L. I wouldn't want to give up either of them. Both are very sharp, very fast focusing and both can take a TC very well. My 200 even give excellent results with a 2X. I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 and replaced it with the 135 and 200 and couldn't be happier.

The 200 is my favorite zoo lens.
This was shot through a fence - 1/2500s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso100

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/91452772.jpg


Here's a candid shot of one of my grandsons - 1/4000s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso125
IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/93750353.jpg

The 135 is a little more versatile. I use for equestrian events, portraits, concerts etc.
Here's an unusual application (taken with remote trigger) 1/400s f/5.6 at 135.0mm iso400
IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/114966988.jpg

The extra speed helps too, if you do any shooting at night. 1/250s f/2.0 at 135.0mm iso1000
IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/99966887.jpg

Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,376 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2674
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 12, 2009 18:59 |  #26

Quad wrote in post #8633055 (external link)
To quote LL a 200 prime is:

"Lightweight and easy to carry. May project a certain “image,” i.e. that you are poor or cheap."


For more tips on what various lenses (or possibly leneses in this particular case) are good for see here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/​sm-august-04.shtml (external link)

And keep in mind he's joking about most of that :P


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
robonrome
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 20:25 |  #27

Wow Bob, those are exceptional. That big cat (leopard or jaguar?) is magnificent. What fantastic lighting...would not look out of place on the cover of national geographic!


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
bob_r
Goldmember
2,473 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 718
Joined Aug 2006
Location: West Tennessee, USA
     
Sep 12, 2009 20:59 |  #28

Thanks, Rob. Here's one more to give you an idea how the 200 works with a TC.
This was taken with a 200 + a 2X TC and you still have AF - 1/200s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso250

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/94729537.jpg

Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robonrome
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,746 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
Location: Australia
     
Sep 12, 2009 21:07 |  #29

Thanks Bob, looks like it's got plenty of sharp left even with the 2x converter...I wouldn't want to double as that pussy-cats ball ;-)a.

And Kenji that flower shot of your is amazing - the perfect blend of smooth and sharp and striking colour. Great stuff!


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)

2,498 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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
1309 guests, 230 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.