So, who owns the Canon 200 f/2?

I'm curious to see how many forum members have been purchasing this beautiful lens. On the Nikon forums quite a number of people are consistently buying the 200 f/2 and with the Canon being so anticipated I'd love to see how many own it now that they can.

So far I know of:
Josh Smith (Aerosmith)

just joint the club last week also. Amazing lens.

I'll own it in 4 years time.

Looks like a awsome lens im in HAHA.Sean .L:p

Amazing that this lens isn't selling considering it's focal length, speed, and quality.

RichNY wrote in post #5669521
Amazing that this lens isn't selling considering it's focal length, speed, and quality.

With everyone speculating or wishing for a price drop... I was about to buy the 300 2.8 and the weekend I was going to buy one this comes along.

RichNY wrote in post #5669521
Amazing that this lens isn't selling considering it's focal length, speed, and quality.

I think whats tipping the scales the other direction is the price.

$6k for this beastie is off the charts.

RichNY wrote in post #5669521
Amazing that this lens isn't selling considering it's focal length, speed, and quality.

mbellot wrote in post #5669915
I think whats tipping the scales the other direction is the price.

$6k for this beastie is off the charts.

Yep, most people can't justify spending that kind of money on any lens. I'd only spend that much for something with a ton of reach personally. Add another $2,000 to the Nikon version and see how popular it is....

But what I have seen from this lens is tremendous.

DDCSD wrote in post #5669953
Yep, most people can't justify spending that kind of money on any lens. I'd only spend that much for something with a ton of reach personally. Add another $2,000 to the Nikon version and see how popular it is....

I understand what you mean about the price; the Nikon 400 f/2.8 is $2k more than the Canon but that doesn't stop lots of people from dropping $8500. The price difference on certain lenses between these two companies are just ridiculous.

RichNY wrote in post #5669521
Amazing that this lens isn't selling considering it's focal length, speed, and quality.

not that amazing really. i think that Canon really screwed up with the price to be honest. i know that for me, i just can't get myself to buy it because:

1) the Nikon counterpart is almost half the price
2) i can't get myself to spend $6k for a 200 F2 when the 135 F2 is $800 (i know that the 200 F2 is a whole different beast but for $5200 or so, i will do my damn best to manage with 70mm less and no IS and a bit less IQ)
3) it is a very specialized lens and at that price, i don't think that i can justify it.


if i really had to have a 200 F2 IS, i would honestly get the Nikon one with a D3 attached to it which wouldn't be much more than the Canon lens. But with all that said, if the lens was released with the price that i thought that it will have ($3500-4000) i would buy it in a heart beat.

btw, i was also gearing up for the 800 F5.6 but now decided to scrape that idea all together due to the price.

I think Canon is just trying to squeeze as much out of the early adopters that need this type of lens or are willing to part with the cash. Josh had to sell a bunch of his gear to get one. With the 200 1.8 still selling at $3000-$4000 used Canon figured they could get more for the new version if it:

a. Had IS.
b. Had IQ on par or better than the 1.8 version.

all the early news and reports seems to show that it does have better IQ than the 1.8 version and of coirse it has IS, so they will charge more. Justified? Well, I am not Canon, but I can see their possible point of view. Would they sell more at $4000? Absolutely. But could they keep up with demand? Maybe not, wich is why they are sticking to the man.

I agree that the price is just too steep. Of course the upside of that for people like me is it kept the value of our 200 1.8s up there. One went for almost $4K a couple of weeks ago in eBay. KEH is still trying to get between $4500 and $5500 for theirs. I expected that lens would come in with a large price tag but $6K is a bit much. If you think about it you can have a Used MkIIN, new 5D and a 200 1.8 for close to the same money as a 200 F2.

Michael

In2Photos wrote in post #5673201
b. Had IQ on par or better than the 1.8 version.

all the early news and reports seems to show that it does have better IQ than the 1.8 version and of coirse it has IS, so they will charge more.

True. But I am still going to reserve judgment on the IQ over a 200 1.8 until I see a true side by side real world test under the same conditions. The chart shots that have been floating around doesn't convince me. If you change the comparison to any other lens against the 200 1.8 the 200 looses pretty much every time and we all know that is not true.

I'm with you in that I don't know what Canon was thinking. 95% of the Event/Sports guys I know with a 200 1.8 have no plans to move to the new lens.

Michael

blonde wrote in post #5673072
i know that for me, i just can't get myself to buy it because:

2) i can't get myself to spend $6k for a 200 F2 when the 135 F2 is $800 (i know that the 200 F2 is a whole different beast but for $5200 or so, i will do my damn best to manage with 70mm less and no IS and a bit less IQ)

Ditto on this.