Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L with TCs

I've currently been using the Canon 55-250 on the T3i camera and while the lens does well at times, I have found the autofocus performance and overall image quality lacking other times.


I've considered looking at the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 to improve my images. I'm confident that as is the lens would be excellent for sports, near wild life (I've set up a bird feeder) and some other general use. How does it take to converters especially on a Rebel body? I see the ISO crops on this site and generally they look good even with the 2X extender used.


Does the autofocus suffer with the 1.4X or 2X TCs to the point where it is as slow or worse than my 55-250? Does the contrast with the 2X suffer to the point the images will still be lacking?


Would it be wiser to just save up and get the 100-400 L? It is quite a large lens compared to anything I'm using now and especially for a Rebel body.


Dave Throgmartin

The 200mm f/2.8 is a very nice lens, but how much will you be using the 400mm focal length? Be forewarned, birding is very adictive! If you plan on spending a fair amount of time birding then the 100-400mm will be much better suited. If not then the 70-200mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and mark II version would be a much more versatile if you decided on waiting and saving up for a nicer lens. The 70-200mm II actually has better IQ then the prime. Off the top of my head I believe the 2x will slow down the AF speed about 2 times slower. Don

Dave,


I went through a similar dilemma. I had (have) a Tamron 70-300mm and felt like I needed more reach. I had considered what Fast Glass had offered as a suggestion, the 100-400mm L. Ultimately I decided to keep my Tamron and purchased the Canon 400 f/5.6L prime in stead.


I never touch my Tamron anymore. I was in love with it, but have recently noticed how soft it gets at the long end of the focal range. Although I know with a certainty that my 400mm is a tad bit sharper than the 100-400mm @ 400mm, I now wish I had made that my choice. I can never bring myself to put the Tamron back on my camera.


So my advice, Don't get the 200mm with the 2x. Ditch the 55-250 and get the lens that I should have. (Still LOVE my 400, but the 100-400 would have been more practical.)

As Nate said and I agree for a birding only lens the 400mm f/5.6 is a better lens, but more critical about suport. As a all around telephoto lens the 100-400mm is a better choice. But even for birding IS is very helpful.


John.

Thanks guys. I was looking at the 200mm as an economical way to produce "pro" quality images. My thinking was that the 200 would be fantastic for sports, and other general every day type of use. I like the fast aperture and think that

Dave,


I've been renting the 200 f2.8 for about 10 days and I find that although it's sharp as a tack, the lack of versatility is making me reconsider. I was also looking for a less expensive way to get a sharp, long lens with speed, but I find the 200mm to be too long for a number of shots I've wanted. I think I'm going to wait and save up for the 70-200 f4 IS. It's not as fast for sure, but the IS should mitigate some of that and the versatility will make it a much more useful lens. It may be worth your time to rent one first just to see how it fits.





Mark

I was thinking in terms of shooting birds with 400mm with a feeder, you can forget about wild birds with the 100-400mm! Unless you spend enormous amounts of time in the blind andhave a very low keeper rate at best.Or ifthey are used tohumancontact; sea gulls, humming birds, sparows, finches ext.I wouldn't shoot less than 300mm in a set up feeder, you can do it but the pictures don't come out as nice and the better beamer (great product!) works much better at longer focal lengths. But it can be done.


I woudn't rent, it's hard to make an acurate judgement in only a short time.Unless it's for something very expensive such asthe 400mm f/2.8 L.I would do as much research as I can and buy it, lenses hold theire value very well and you can sell itin a couple months from now and not lose to much. You might figure out youwant the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II Lor the 70-300mm L or something.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

I was thinking in terms of shooting birds with 400mm with a feeder, you can forget about wild birds with the 100-400mm!

---

Ah, yes...because these two are quite domesticated. [:P] The yellow warbler is cropped only to convert from landscape to portrait, and the GBH is not cropped at all (both withEOS 7D and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS USM @ 400mm):


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/...b87ffc9d9d.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/...3be2bb4d03.jpg

I took both of the pictures below with the 55-250. The one of great blue heron was taken at 250mm and cropped heavily to focus on the bird. The second one of the black capped chickadee was taken at 200mm near my bird feeder.


I'm sure there are plenty of times when 400mm won't cut it for wild birds, but I think it would have been great for the heron shot.


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...0_2790_upd.jpg


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...08_27_2554.jpg

Regarding your pictures at the link -- wow! Great job. I really like the ones of the owl and the bald eagle.

I actually found a 200mm f/2.8 mark I used at a local camera shop for $600 with the tripod mount on it. What is the going rate for these and does anyone know if they typically come with a tripod mount?

Thanks, Dave! The bald eagle was actually shot with the 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II (he has a broken wing and is in the care of a local science museum).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

I actually found a 200mm f/2.8 mark I used at a local camera shop for $600 with the tripod mount on it. What is the going rate for these and does anyone know if they typically come with a tripod mount?

---

Good find! I had a MkII version for a while, bought used form Craigslist, later sold after getting the 70-200mm II.


$600 seems pretty reasonable given the recent lens price increases and given that you bought it from a camera shop. The Mk II sell for $800 new, and on FM they go for ~$600 used. FYI, the only difference between the MkI and the MkII is the hood - attached/extendable on the MkI vs. separate on the MkII - else, I believe the two versions are optically and mechanically the same. AFAIK, the tripod ring was included with the MkI version (at least, it's pictured on the lens image in the Canon Camera Museum), and not included with the MkII version (for which it's an expensive addition - the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A sells for $140).


Enjoy the new lens!


--John