Anyone use a Canon 200mm F2.8L?

paulcamcas

paulcamcas

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,509
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Pondering a long portrait lens. Don't want to lug a 70-200mm f2.8 around. Is the 200mm f2.8 prime any good?
 
Shame it doesnt have IS, although if it did I guess it would be in competition with the 200 2?
 
Guess so. Mind you the 200/2 is a hideous bucket of a lens that must weight a ton.
 
Both the 200mm 2.8 and 200mm f2 are great lenses for their price range.

I have used both with the 2x TC and they are still sharp enough, the 200mm f2.8 stopped down to f7.1 and the 200mm f2 at f5
 
i do have a 70-200 f2.8 and 200mm at 2.8 does indeed make a very nice portrait length, especially when you want to be good distance away from your subject - such as with kids.

it has to be said though, if you're stuck on a prime, maybe the 135 f2 is a better buy? it's about the same cash, a whole stop faster, a real bokeh machine and not really much different in size or weight?

personally, i think a prime in the f2.8 prime in the 70-200 range is bit of a waste of money in that the 70-200 zoom is so good that there really isn't any difference in iq. i know there is this whole weight thing... but you will get used to it.
 
cuthbert said:
i think a prime in the f2.8 prime in the 70-200 range is bit of a waste of money in that the 70-200 zoom is so good that there really isn't any difference in iq.
Click to expand...

I disagree
 
So do I, the 200mm 2.8 is great lens, and they can be picked up for £400ish, whereas the 135mm usually fetches £600. I find it a great lens for travel particularly, and kids sports days on a 1.3crop body.
 
Thanks for the helpful comments. How does it perform wide open?

Right now I only have a 24-210 plus 50mm manual focus zeiss I only really use the zoom at the long end. I was thinking that a 135 would do me 70% of the time with the 200 mopping up 20% plus a 35mm for the odd wide moment.

I know most people would go for the 70-200 f2.8 but I just don't like the way the camera feels with it. And zooms just seem to complicate things.
 
Last edited:
admirable said:
I have both and the prime is sharper but it is a prime so you are restricted in use. In a studio situation the fact it is a prime doesn't really come into it as the subject is usually at a constant distance from the camera.
Click to expand...

Is the 200mm indeed sharper than the 70-200 version II?
That is indeed impressive!
 
Bought a 70-200f4 IS as a potential replacement to my 200L II, however I couldn't bring myself to sell it so I sold the zoom.
 
Had it and sold it. There was nothing wrong with it - in fact it was extremely fast and sharp - but as only as sharp as Canon 70-200mm without the zoom and without IS. Light, black and f/2.8 just wasn't special enough.
 
Its one lines i have been contemplating to add to my lens line up. wouldnt mind adding a TC to it and haveing that range.
 
£500 v's £900 plus the weight of the zoom would mean I'd almost never bother taking it out the house unless it was for a specific purpose. For me the prime wins hands down based on my criteria.
 
paulcamcas said:
Fair point, but you missed out cheap. :lol: If you are miser like me and like buying used, there's a hefty saving over a 70-200.
Click to expand...

Similar price to Canon 70-200mm f/4L non-IS, which is an overall better package for my needs.
 
I just bought one last week- love the discreet size, build and image quality.

I bought it knowing that a 200mm prime would have limited use, but I also knew that I pretty much used my 70-200F4L at 200mm 95% of the time.

I've let my dad borrow my 70-200F4L, so that I would have something in that range if I need the flexibility.

The quality on the prime is astounding - and the bokeh is very creamy!

I posted a couple of photos yesterday of some peacocks I shot at Kew Gardens which I think show off the qualities of the lens quite nicely:

they are in the 'birds' section here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=322327

I would recommend this lens, but you should buy it knowing that 200mm can be limiting. I am personally enjoying the challenge of using this focal length - its really refreshing after using zooms.
I also bought a 1.4 II extender which gives me a 280MM F4 with almost no hit on image quality.
 
oh I bought mine in near mint condition for £450 from ebay - I think they sell for around £500 from places like MPB, they have had one for a while now I've noticed.

I've seen them go for cheaper as well, especially the Mk1 - although I have reservations about how well the built-in hood performs, it seems a bit shallow. I also saw someone talking about falling over with one and cracking the hood on another forum - which meant that they had to break it off - don't know if its replaceable.
 
Hey travellingcello, I've literally just this minute bought that lens from MPB! I'm hoping it's every bit as good as everyone says it is. I've been using my 100mm 2.8L Macro quite a bit indoors and in low light and have been very very impressed by it so I just wanted more of the same but with the extra reach, albeit without the image stabilisation.
 
Ha that's funny! I was eyeballing that particular lens for ages before taking the plunge on the ebay one- hope you enjoy it!

I'm certainly enjoying my lens so far... post some pics here or on flickr, I would be interested in seeing what it is like on your 5d.
 
@travellingcello. Me also. First impressions are that it's not as insanely sharp as my 100mm L Macro, but it's nice to have the speed and the reach. So far I can see that it's just about a usable length indoors on a full frame, and I may use it for my kid's concerts and indoor football events etc where I need good low light performance. Outdoors I reckon that it's going to end up on my crop frame a bit more for the extra distance I'd get. I'll put some photos up on http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgooday
 
Okay so I've had this lens for a few days now and I have to admit I'm struggling a little. When I use my 100mm 2.8L Macro wide open and focus on an eye, I can be sure that that eye is in focus. The hit rate is 9/10 upwards, even with IS off. I've come to expect pin sharp clarity on whichever focus point I select. But I just can't get this level of accuracy on my 200mm, even if I use stupidly fast shutter speeds to eliminate any possibility of lens shake. And for the record. I'm quite well used to shooting with less than good lenses at 400mm, so I'm pretty sure my technique is okay (sigma 120-400, albeit with OS). Is there such a thing as a duff copy of a 200mm 2.8? Or am I just more rubbish that I thought? Or is it unfair to compare a lens designed in '96 with one that's only a year old? I'll keep on trying.
 
travellingcello said:
oh I bought mine in near mint condition for £450 from ebay - I think they sell for around £500 from places like MPB, they have had one for a while now I've noticed.
Click to expand...

Congrats, you outbid me:-) very interested to read about your experience with this lens.
 
Last edited:
The 100mm f2.8Lis a brutally sharp lens - I've heard somebody say it was almost too sharp for portraits of humans... So comparing the two is - as you rightly point out - possibly somewhat unfair.

I'm assuming you've tried shooting something static using a tripod, beyond the lens' mfd? Stupid question, I appreciate, but I have to ask...
 
Now I've had time to get used to the lens, I do really like it. My earlier reservations were down to my own stupidity. I hadn't really appreciated the drastic differences in DOF between these focal lengths at similar subject distances. Full frame, wide open, at the unreasonably close distance of 3m, you only have 4cm DOF to play with on the 200mm compared to a more (in my case) idiot-proof 15cm on the 100mm. If the subject is moving, indoors and close-up that might explain the dodgy hit rate. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Actually this lens is teaching me to really be still... I hadn't realised how much my hands shake as I press the shutter until now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top