thinking of EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

thinking of EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
Hi
i want your opinion about this lens
is it worth to buy it for kids portraits indoors and outdoors and for sports
Thanks

I would say since you already have a 70-300L that it may be a bit redundant.. Especially considering you have a 135L as well.

Thanks Steve

It's a great lens, I love mine. Could be a bit tight indoors, but will be great outdoors.

Its a great lens. But given that the 70-200 2.8IS either version duplicates the function to some degree its an overlooked lens. I've pondered it, but the mark II version of the zoom makes it an unlikely option.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16031425
Its a great lens. But given that the 70-200 2.8IS either version duplicates the function to some degree its an overlooked lens. I've pondered it, but the mark II version of the zoom makes it an unlikely option.

The 70-200mm II has IS to allow for holding at slower speeds, and the sharpness is about the same, but the 200mm prime does have some advantages, namely size, magnification and I believe focusing speed @ 200mm. It is also less conspicuous.

If I were in the market for a great portrait lens but didn't have the budget for a $2000 85/1.2 or 70-200/2.8 II, I would opt for the 200/2.8. I got mine for $600 used. Yes, the 135L is faster, but the 200L is cheaper and blurs the background slightly more. And although I don't do much macro, it doubles as a macro lens with a close-up lens.

frugivore wrote in post #16031511
The 70-200mm II has IS to allow for holding at slower speeds, and the sharpness is about the same, but the 200mm prime does have some advantages, namely size, magnification and I believe focusing speed @ 200mm. It is also less conspicuous.

If I were in the market for a great portrait lens but didn't have the budget for a $2000 85/1.2 or 70-200/2.8 II, I would opt for the 200/2.8. I got mine for $600 used. Yes, the 135L is faster, but the 200L is cheaper and blurs the background slightly more. And although I don't do much macro, it doubles as a macro lens with a close-up lens.

Its a great lens, I would love to own one. But if 200 @2.8 is your goal its a one trick pony compared to the zoom which is pretty close and does so much more.

This is my favorite lens. I also have the 135mm f2, but I use my 200mm far more often. It's just slightly bigger than the 135mm, and the extra reach comes in handy. For outdoor portraits, it's outstanding. Beautiful bokeh at 2.8. Also a great sports lens, and you can get into any venue with it. You won't get into many sports events with the big white zoom.

Thanks all
im thinking about this lens because its look like the 135L
and it has f/2.8 at 200mm
with the x1.4 canon extender will be 280mm at f/4 i think
not having IS is not important to me
i like prime lenses

moltengold wrote in post #16031143
thinking of EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
I want your opinion about this lens.
Is it worth to buy it for kids portraits, indoors and outdoors, and for sports?

I would absolutely love to have a 200mm f2.8 lens. It would be perfect for a lot of my shooting. EXCEPT . . . it doesn't have image stabilization.

The situations I would use this lens for would be for close-up wildlife in the woods, under the forest's canopy. There is little light in there - just like there is little light indoors where you want to shoot kid's portraits.

If they made this lens with IS - a new generation of IS where you actually get 4 stops' gain - then I would buy it for sure, even though it would cost about $1500 with IS. But without IS it is practically useless to me. So, I won't be buying this lens unless an IS version comes out sometime soon, which is extremely doubtful.

I feel the same way about the 135mm f2.

Handholding lenses of these focal lengths, while out of breath and balancing in a precarious position, just won't work at 1/10th of a second, or 1/15th of a second. How do you get every single hair and feather perfectly sharp and clear while handholding under such conditions? You don't. Not unless you have the latest IS, at least.

Thanks Tom

Tom is absolutely correct. If you need to shoot at 1/10 or 1/15 sec, the 200mm 2.8 and the 135mm f2 won't do. But his statement is also correct for any non-IS 100mm or 85mm or 50mm lens as well. I certainly wouldn't get many keepers shooting at 1/15 sec. with a 50mm lens without stabilization. However for more normal outdoor conditions where such long shutter speeds aren't required, these lenses are both quite easy to hand hold.

Thanks nightcat

Very limited and restrictive lens. I wouldn't buy any telephoto lens without IS.

So stop cutting corners and save up for the 70-200II, that way you'd be set for life, well at least until mkIII comes out

EDIT - Actually do you use your 70-300L a lot at 300mm? If not, sell that and together with the money of 200 2.8, you can just get the 70-200II + 1.4x TC. Much better and versatile combo, a stop faster on tele end (with TC, 2 stops without) and take almost no hit on AF speed with your 5D3.

i like your point kin2son
yes with the 70-200 II i think i will get what i need
but i have to save some cash for the new queen