200mm f 1.8

[iND]

I have a chance to purchase a 200mm f 1.8 and I am looking for anyone with any advice or experience with this lens.

I know it is a niche lens an will only be using it at 1.8.

I know it is out of production and will not be able to be repaired by Canon.

I know the new version is 200mm f 2.0 IS and is also an excellent lens.

I am going to get one or the other and I would like to discuss further pros and cons.

Thank you.

[Jayson]

Not sure if anyone here has experience with said lens. I know I frequent the fm forums and a man by the name of petkal has this lens and is very fond of it. Lisa holloway uses the f/2 version in most of her photos. They both produce amazingly stunning images. I haven't seen any direct comparison per say but I haven't been looking for this particular situation but have heard the 1.8 produces a little warmer image. I think most of the older versions, I.e. magic drain pipe, produce that magic color. . I know some places still have parts for the lens so you should be able to get repairs if needed. I would just make sure you know the condition of said lens and if it has a fungus problem. I have heard older lenses are a little more prone. Otherwise, I would think either one would be a killer lens to have. Good luck in your decisions!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavidEccleston]

TDP has test results. Not perfect results mind you, but results nonetheless.

The f/1.8 was only tested on the 1Ds2, while the f/2.0 lens on nearly everything *except* the 1Ds2, so not a direct comparision. That said, I would think that that 1DsIII's boosted resolution (21.1MP over 16.6MP) would show more problems, everything else being equal.

The actual results are not so kind. The f/1.8 is significantly softer, even when comparing f/2 vs. f/2. Unless you need the f/1.8 aperture, you're better off with the f/2. As they're so close to the same aperture, it's not going to make much difference in terms of light gathering, so I'd pretty much straight out suggest the 2.0, unless you need the added OOF blur... and it does indeed add blur.

Here's a blur comparision graph for head/shoulders portrait. Distance behind subject vs. % of frame the blur disc will cover.

As always, Search for "flickr pool (lens name)" to find out what people are able to do. If the 1.8 consistently blows away the 2.0 in your eyes, there you go.

Oh, and the f/2 has IS, which is always nice.

[Sean Setters]

Bryan always wanted a Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 USM. Then he got it. It was a fun and unique lens. Then he got the Canon EF 200mm f/2 IS USM and never looked back.

For what it's worth, Bryan was so impressed by the 200mm f/2 IS that he now uses it as a benchmark to test various bodies against one another in the image quality tests (the lens features excellent sharpness with minimal CA and distortion, so it makes a great standard for comparison). Check it out - you'll see much more than the typical 1Ds and 60D results for you to peruse. ;-)

[iND]

Thanks for the input.

[Kayaker72]

No direct experience, but I sometimes go looking for shots taken with the EF 200 f/2 IS. They just really seem to stand out.

[peety3]

Another point to mention from Bryan's review of the 200/1.8: it's very front-heavy, making holding the lens awkward. It also has a front-mounted tripod ring, which means you can't put the hood into the stowed/carry position if you have anything on the tripod foot (monopod direct-mounted, Arca-Swiss plate, etc.). Neither of these are show-stoppers, but I'd absolutely pick the 200/2 over the 200/1.8 if it were me.