Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L-II

Anybody here shoot with this "L".

Yes, and I like it a lot.
Doesn't get much talk amongst all the 70-200 options.
What is your zoom not doing for you?
Greg

BiPolarBear wrote in post #3932252
What is your zoom not doing for you?
Greg

2.8

Great lens. Small, light, fast, and sharp. Great bokeh, and lovely color.

Here's a few shots from that lens, all at 2.8.

Those are straight from the camera, btw. No PP other than resize and SFW.

Space wrote in post #3932072
Anybody here shoot with this "L".

Yep, love it!

Pft...sure. You had to go and show me up.

Space wrote in post #3932287
2.8

True.
A f/4 lens doesn't do f/2.8 very well. But there are two f/2.8 zoomers available.
I'd think the prime might be a good option for you if you are at the long end of your zoom alot.
And i prefer that the prime isn't white.
Much less obtrusive for faces in the crowd type candids.
Then again, i'm not sure i'm exactly stealthy at taking candids anyways (200 f/2.8 with X1.4 TC)..... I'm pretty sure this fellow would agree.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Sure - not the most used of my primes, but it still gets a lot of time on the camera.

Mark

Great shots Ron... doesnt surprise me

200 2.8L and 135 2L are my favorite lenses

PS
great candid, bipolarbear!

No one ever complains about this prime because there is simply nothing to complain about. It seems that it's only flaw is that it is a 200mm prime which many people find not very useful.

When I had mine I found myself searching out opportunities to use it because I loved it so much. Letting this one go was by far the most painful sale I have ever done with lenses.

It's a great "shooting your family at the park" lens because people are inhearently more spread out in situations like that but arn't so far away that you need a 400 to reach them. I found it too short for football and other sports unless the action was close to you and then it was often too long (close in sports is what the 70-200 2.8L IS was make for).

The lens if flawless and in many tests is sharper than it's 135mm younger brother (although not by much, something like mesuring the difference between a razor blade and a samuri sword, both are insanely sharp). What makes this even better is that you get all this for just over $600. If you have a use for this length, don't hesitate, just go out and get one.

Yes, fantastic performer, very sharp, does not even notice the 1.4X and gives good results with the 2X, very good flare resistance, fast AF, light and compact, excellent value.

Sell the 70-200 4L... and buy a 70-200 2.8L (one of the best zoom lenses available)!

You can still enjoy your 70-200 range and get 200 2.8 for free! (Almost as sharp as the 200 2.8)!

Overkill wrote in post #3935514
Sell the 70-200 4L... and buy a 70-200 2.8L (one of the best zoom lenses available)!

You can still enjoy your 70-200 range and get 200 2.8 for free! (Almost as sharp as the 200 2.8)!

Not bad advice, but you lose these advantages the 200 f/2.8 gives you:

1. Smaller
2. Lighter
3 Sharper (if that matters to you)
4. Black (combined with 1 & 2 allow the lens to be stealthier for things like street photography).


Mark