Canon 200 F2.8L am I wrong

siejones

siejones

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,547
Edit My Images
No
I was looking at 70-200 F4L for sometime but I am beginning to think it's just not fast enough for me. You see so many threads on here saying "it's great but I wanted a faster lens so I got the 70-200 F2.8 and sold it".

I can't afford the 70-200 F2.8 so thats out of the question.

So I have started to look at the 200 F2.8. It's fast and very sharp by all accounts and it's price a lot more attractive. It will also take a 1.4 extender to make it a 280mm F4 not so far off a 300 F4. Ok I know it won't be quite as good IQ for not far off I think.

What do you guys think?
 
Well you can never have a big enough max aperture. A quality prime like the 200 2.8 should produce better sharpness than even the best zoom. If you can do without the convenience of the zoom and don't mind moving your feet a bit instead, there's a lot to be said for going for the prime fast lens.

Also the lens will still AF with both extenders on all EOS bodies, so it would be a pretty useful bit of kit IMHO.
 
I wish I'd never sold my F4, cracking lens, and even now I see most shots are taken at F4 or above. There have of course been times where I needed F2.8 to get usable shutter speeds even at ISO800

Whether or not the prime is right depends on what you do. I couldn't live without the versatility of the zoom lens but the 200 F2.8 looks like an excellent bit of kit.
 
It's a moot point as to whether prime glass is the best.... Most of these lens designs have been around for a few years and very little money has been spent in redesigning. That leaves all the research money placed in zooms (and digital cameras).

So.... where does that leave us? In the situation that some of the more modern zoom lenses are actually better than the older fixed primes :( This state of affairs exists across all marques.
 
The 200mm f2.8 is supposed to be a brilliant lens as are alot of the Canon primes, the only issue is the loss of a range, so its going to be perfect for the not soo close subjects/objects - but when something happens right next to you there will not be the option to zoom out. But optically it should be superior to the Canon 70-200 f2.8 mainly due to the fact that it has been designed to work at only a single focal length, whereas the 70-200 has to be able to focus from 70-200 (obviously).

Primes are great for quality but they need a bit more concentration as you literally need to be a step ahead of the game to get your self in a position that allows you to frame the shot, obviously with a zoom this is easier as you can zoom in and out to compose the shot, so be prepared for alot more walking with the prime lens ;)
 
chuckles said:
It's a moot point as to whether prime glass is the best.... Most of these lens designs have been around for a few years and very little money has been spent in redesigning. That leaves all the research money placed in zooms (and digital cameras).

So.... where does that leave us? In the situation that some of the more modern zoom lenses are actually better than the older fixed primes :( This state of affairs exists across all marques.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did consider that the 200mm prime was made started in 1995. It's only a MKII USM which shows it's age so it's a little long in the tooth but is it really lagging behind in anything other than IS maybe?
 
You're right about there being lots of f4 owners that would like to move up to the faster lens. The real question is how many of them actually need to make that upgrade?

I have the 70-200 f4 and have spent loads of time thinking that I'd be better off with the 2.8.

The fact is that the little version is just fine for 99% of my needs and there is really no need to spend the extra money. The f4 is an outstanding lens for the money it costs and unless you really really need that extra stop, it's a total gem.

Of course I wouldn't mind having IS at all either. ;o)
 
I've had this lens and its predecessor in my bag for as long as I've been doing this stuff. Why? Apart from the f1.8 it is the best medium telephoto around (canon). It is not a flexible as the zooms but I work on the premise that if the shot is worth it I will get it. In restricted space and if the shot means the difference between being paid or not 2.8 zoom (IS not needed ususally in these circumstances)evey time -but- for considered image centred capture 2.8 mkII is a beauty. IMHO;)
 
have you not considered the Sigma 70-200 f2.8?

It may not be L glass, but the isn't must difference, if IS is a consideration....spend double on the canon, if money is the factor, get the sigma :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top