Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?
  
 
bellissimogirl
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


I was planning on replacing my 70-200 2.8 with the new version. Not happy with the amount of CA that I get occasionally and the Canon reps are claiming that the color is better also on the new version. But after recently purchasing the 35 1.4 prime and falling in love with the sharpness and overall quality of the images, I'm tempted to purchase another prime. I already have the 85 1.8, so I wouldn't necessarily be sacrificing range. Thoughts?

Teresa



Sep 07, 2013 at 09:51 PM
gwaww
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


I've owned it and it is very sharp. Also does well wit 1.4 TC. It is very light and sharp. I had the original 70-200 2.8 at the same time and the prime was sharper. Sold both to fund the 70-200 MKII.
Great lens but I get tired of the weight. If you will shoot mostly at 200 you don't need the zoom. Incidently, I had the orig. 200 with the sliding hood and only paid 350 for it used.



Sep 07, 2013 at 10:36 PM
bellissimogirl
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


I have loved my 70-200, but it is heavy. Shot a wedding last night and I was definitely tired this morning after lugging it all day.


Sep 07, 2013 at 10:42 PM
pjbuehner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


the new 70-200 is a marked improvement over the older IS version. I rarely used the older 70-200IS because I wasn't happy with it in comparison to the primes I use in that length. The new one does very well in comparison. The AF is better, the images sharper at all focal lengths (than the previous model...not the primes). It may be that I had a not so great copy of the older IS and purchased a stellar copy of the newer one but in my experience, it is the first zoom that just might be good enough for my needs to keep the fixed focal length lenses at home.
Good luck.



Sep 07, 2013 at 10:43 PM
AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


We cannot do anything about the weight but indeed, the Mark II version of that lens gives prime lenses within its focal length range a run for the money. I used to own the 200mm f/2.8 lens; that was approximately 7-8 years back. I cannot compare the two side-by-side anymore but I got the hunch that the new zoom is at least of equal optical performance as that of the prime lens, maybe even a tad better . Plus, it has a very effective IS. Just MHO, of course.


Sep 07, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


Yes... it's great...

Also does not attract much attention...



Sep 07, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


bellissimogirl wrote:
But after recently purchasing the 35 1.4 prime and falling in love with the sharpness and overall quality of the images, I'm tempted to purchase another prime...


That's the million dollar question. It's very personal and takes a lot of consideration.

The 2.8 zooms are very muscular lenses - they'll get you the shot and are flexible when space is limited. In comparison to precise primes which are more demanding to use - you have to position yourself well.

I do own a 16-35 f2.8, but as far as primes go I use a 35 f1.4, and a 85 f1.8 with a 135 f2 over the 70-200 because it requires a different approach and makes me work a little harder in terms of camera position when photographing dynamic scenes.

It also requires two bodies.

There's a reason the majority of press photogs use the 2.8 zooms, and that's that they are more likely to get the shot being able to quickly zoom in or out and frame the scene. Primes in the same situation require a heightened sense of where the action will be.

What tips me in the direction of primes is two things; the discipline of photographic practice, and the optical qualities each prime has.



Sep 07, 2013 at 11:19 PM
gwaww
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


Teresa,
Paul makes good points. If you download a free program called Exposureplot it will look at any group of photos use choose and tell you what focal lengths you used most with your 70-200. Also, if I was going back to only primes, I could not be without the 135L.



Sep 07, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


I have an EF 200 2.8L I bought new in 1995 and it's hard to beat if you mainly need 200mm. I often use it with the matched 1.4X Extender and it loses little IQ or focus speed. Love the small size and black color. The only negative I can think of is it lacks IS, a feature I miss more and more as I've gotten older.


Sep 07, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


The 200mm f2.8L is a stunning performer. It has a nicer bokeh than any of the 70-200's and it has a slightly different image rendering. It's more like the 35mm 1.4L in that regard. Most people need the convenience of the 70-200's so the 200 is a lens that gets very little attention. I had one and sold it but wish I had it for certain things.


Sep 08, 2013 at 01:52 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


I don't shoot weddings... stay as far away from such things as I can... but I was shooting a band at a festival a while back ... one of the few times I get to use the 200 f/2.8L... but this shot may give you some idea what it does wide open...

ISO 50... 1/640... @ f/2.8... 5Dc...








Sep 08, 2013 at 02:19 AM
Jon Joshua
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


How does the 200 2.8 L compare to the 80-200 2.8 L @ 200?

I do a lot of shooting at 200mm and I'd pick up a 200 2.8 if the IQ was better than the 80-200 2.8.



Sep 09, 2013 at 04:59 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


5Dc + Canon 200 f/2.8 @ f/2.8... ISO 640... 1/1250

Luke...







Chain link fence in background...







Edited on Sep 10, 2013 at 01:45 AM · View previous versions



Sep 10, 2013 at 01:34 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


Here's a couple from my EF 200 2.8L:






Sep 10, 2013 at 01:43 AM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


Different perspective...







And with a 1.4x II on a 30D










Sep 10, 2013 at 01:57 AM
Cadaver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


The 200mm 2.8 is one great lens. I find mine to be very sharp wide open and love the fact that it's small, lightweight and black.


Sep 10, 2013 at 01:59 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


Jon Joshua wrote:
How does the 200 2.8 L compare to the 80-200 2.8 L @ 200?

I do a lot of shooting at 200mm and I'd pick up a 200 2.8 if the IQ was better than the 80-200 2.8.


good question , the pipe is the reason ive not sought any other >200mm option
but the prime will have better AF than the pipe so if you shoot moving stuff at 200mm that maybe a big benefit .

the AF performance is the one thing I would like better on the 80-200L . it does a good job in one shot mode but in servo on a moving subject its really nervous .



Sep 10, 2013 at 08:58 AM
scottam10
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


I looked at the 135 f/2L and 200 f/2.8L, and I went with the 135 for a couple of reasons
1. Shorter lens therefore easier to handhold without IS
2. f/2 aperture, which is faster than the 70-200 f/2.8, whereas the 200 f/2.8 doesn't have an aperture advantage
- these 2 combine to make the 135mm easier to use than the 200mm in low light, but the 135mm is still not as easy to use in low light as a 35mm or 50mm prime.

It also has a nice short min focal distance of just 0.9m, which is the same as the 85mm primes

Obviously if you're a long way from your subject you may need the 200mm; just saying that the 135 is another excellent option.



Sep 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Anybody shoot the 200mm f2.8 L?


I've owned both the Mark I and Mark II variants of this lens over the years, as well as the FD equivalent before that. I love everything about this lens--except for lack of IS.

My experience is that the 70-200L IS II is very marginally sharper than the 200L II wide open and has a bit less CA. That said, unless you were able to compare controlled test shots side by side, I don't think you would notice or ever have a negative comment about the IQ of this lens.

This lens is fantastic in the hand, much lighter and lower profile than the zoom. I sold my most recent copy a while back, but I would purchase one in a heartbeat if Canon ever released a version with IS.



Sep 10, 2013 at 03:00 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password