200L Mk II what's it good for?

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.

nightcat wrote in post #8630258
, 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?

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

That's my only other thought.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

Keep in mind how TINY these guys are!

robonrome wrote in post #8629322
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

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

Quad wrote in post #8633055
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

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

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!

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

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 .

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