Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

hello everyone!


at the moment, i am seriously considering
getting this lens, as i have heard about it's amazing image quality. it is also black, and relatively small/light.
essentially, i am looking for a telephoto lens for use for outdoor
sports, and probably wedding candids (indoors/outdoors).


i have
thought about getting one of the 70-200mm canons, but they are either
too slow (f/4), or too expensive and big (f/2.8). i know that the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens
is not as flexible one of the zooms, but i am more interested in using
the 200mm, rather than the 70mm end, because i already have the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens to cover that "lower" focal range


so, if anyone out there has used this lens, then i would like to know what you think of it. how easy is it take handheld shots? at what kind of shutter speeds can you still get sharp images at - especially when using an APS-C crop camera? do you find it has limited use because of the fixed 200mm focal length? i'd really appreciate any feedback you have!


thanks =)

If you're complaining about the 70-200 being too slow or too expensive and big. What about the 70-200 Non-IS? Or the 400 IS which also gets great reviews. Also if you're planning on using a tripod since the 200 2.8 is non-IS.. then big/heavy shouldn't be a worry.

And it's strange you complain about the speed, when you already own a f4 ;)


Just my 2 cents.. I just picked up the 2.8 IS and yes it's expensive and heavy, but it's a tank ;) And I really wanted the IS and something I new was reviewed as being an amazing lens and also would last me years to come.


So I personally would look at the 70-200 f4 IS or not, which will give you more range and weigh about the same and the IS is what you'll pay for and if you're going hand-held and sports, I personally think you'd be better with the 4 IS or 2.8 IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbdb

i am more interested in using
the 200mm, rather than the 70mm end

---

Sounds like the 200mm f/2.8 prime is a good choice for you. It's an excellent lens. It's easy to take handheld shots. It has much better balance on a crop body than the 70-200 f/2.8, for example. But without IS, of course, camera shake can be a big problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbdb

at what kind of shutter speeds can you still get sharp images at - especially when using an APS-C crop camera?

---

At 12x18 print sizes, I need at least 1/500 to take care of motion blur. but if I'm just doing web-size images, I can get away with 1/125. (It helps that the lens is smaller and lighter than the 70-200.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbdb

do you find it has limited use because of the fixed 200mm focal length

---

Yes, that's why I don't have it now.


It is amazingly sharp for the price.

You might want to consider the 135mm f/2. It's another excellent lens (although not quite as long as the 200), but at f/2 it's easier to get the shutter speeds you need to stop motion without pushing the ISO too high.

hello again,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotsecretary

If you're complaining about the
70-200 being too slow or too expensive and big. What about the 70-200
Non-IS? Or the 400 IS which also gets great reviews. Also if you're
planning on using a tripod since the 200 2.8 is non-IS.. then big/heavy
shouldn't be a worry.

And it's strange you complain about the speed, when you already own a f4 ;)

---

the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is still too slow, and the f/2.8 is still too
big + expensive. and no, i am not planning on using a tripod, because
i know that even if i bought a tripod, i'd never bring it with me, as i
don't like to carry much. and also, i know i'll need at least f/2.8
for sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Sounds like the 200mm f/2.8 prime is a good choice for you. It's an
excellent lens. It's easy to take handheld shots. It has much better
balance on a crop body than the 70-200 f/2.8, for example. But without
IS, of course, camera shake can be a big problem.


At 12x18 print sizes, I need at least 1/500 to take care of motion
blur. but if I'm just doing web-size images, I can get away with 1/125.
(It helps that the lens is smaller and lighter than the 70-200.)

---

daniel, thanks for the detailed info - that's very useful to me!
although it's sad to hear that you no longer own this lens. does
anyone out there still own the 200mm f/2.8 and is STILL using it??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

You might want to consider the
135mm f/2. It's another excellent lens (although not quite as long as
the 200), but at f/2 it's easier to get the shutter speeds you need to
stop motion without pushing the ISO too high.

---

and sean, the 135mm f/2 is a very nice lens, but it will cost more
than the 200mm f/2.8, and maybe a little bit too short for my planned
usage. it's a tough choice,because i know that fast telephotos will
inevitably = big + expensive!! unless canon can come up with some new
technology like the DO lenses that can solve these problems... without
compromising image quality of course! =)

Best of luck then :) But that's what happened when I bought my 70-200.. I was on the edge between all 4 of them. But after knowing I prefer low-light and 2.8 is just the thing for that, heck I'd take a 1.8! [H]


As for the 135, do you have a 1.4x extender[;)] Then you'd get a lot of use out of the 135, not just for sports. And if you already have the extender then it wouldn't be too much difference in price over the 200.

This is a shot from Road Atlanta using the 200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x II on a 5D. A crop body would be similar (1.4 extender to 1.6 APS ). Shot is at f/5, ISO 500 so it is a fast shutter speed (1/4000th). Shot is hand held.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.05/Mitty.jpg[/img]


The 200 f/2.8 has exellent IQ and doesn't cost that much, about $700 I think. The shot is not croped.


JeffersonPorter


One more


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.05/WERA.jpg[/img]


Shutter Priority, ISO 250, f/10, 1/320, again hand held. 200 f/2.8 and 1.4x II.

WOWSAAA!!!


nice one jefferson, i'm very impressed with what you've managed with that second image... AF speed must be pretty good then! were you panning as you shot it?

AF is fairly fast even with the 1.4x II. Yes, this was a pan. I shot with AI Servo Center Weighted metering. Pre focused at a spot on the track, then followed till I got the frame I wanted.


JeffersonPoster

Great shots!

The second photo is the best IMO -- feeling the motion and speed unlike the first photo where I was thinking if it was parked or moving. Nice photos nonetheless. [:D]

I get that alot. I just like the detail in the "parked" shots.


JeffersonPoster

Buy the tripod collar, about $70.00, and you can use it on the 70-200m f/4 IS lens as well. wwp

just to keep you all in the loop, i received my copy of the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM lens last week


my first impressions of it, after a few indoor shots at home, were not too good as i was struggling with getting clean shots. plus, i'd not properly used a 200mm focal length lens before. i could tell that the build quality was clearly there, as soon as i held it though.


anyway, over the weekend, i decided to take it with me to my best friend's wedding, and i'm pleased to report that i have now fallen in love with this lens!!! it really started to shine in the daylight, and the AF performance is achingly good ...giving me super sharp images. and don't even get me started on the bokeh... creamy and dreamy - non of my other lenses are capable of producing anything like this kind of bokeh. and i soon got used to the fixed 200mm focal length - superb head/shoulder shots were made effortlessly.


as we moved indoors, i decided to up the ISO to 1600 whilst shooting at f/2.8 on my 450D, and that seemed to do the trick, in terms of stopping the action and eliminating camera shake. another cool thing i noticed too, was that people didn't notice that i was taking pictures of them, as the lens is relatively small, and also black. as i'm standing quite far away from them, capturing candid moments was easy!


i's so looking forward to using this lens again soon - thanks for all the advice from this thread guys!


=]

Glad you decided to get the lens. Yes, it takes some getting used to not having a zoom and to hand-holding a 200mm lens (280mm on a crop body) but the lens itself is very sharp, relatively light and much more compact than the 70-200 zooms. I recently purchased the 200 F2.8 prime and after several shoots, both indoors and out, I sold my 70-200 F4L because it simply was not as sharp. I've been using the prime for several weeks now and love it, especially with the 1.4X extender which gives great reach and the resolution is still better than my old zoom.





There is no question that the 70-200 L lenses are great zooms. But there is equally no question that good primes are better than good zooms in terms of sharpness. The 200 F2.8L is an extraordinary lens that performs almost as well as the 135 F2.0L but has greater reach. You simply have to accept the fact that you'll not have the convenience of a zoom but you will be able to get better images if your technique is up to the quality of the lens.





Good luck with it and have fun.





Jim