Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

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

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2016 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II

  
 
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


135mm f/2.0 ≠ 200mm f/2.8 ≠ 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II

Comparing these lenses is like trying to compare a Skill 77 worm drive saw, a Japanese Ryoba pull saw, and a Hilti Jigsaw. Each will cut wood. The difference is in accuracy, speed, type of cut needed, and final product.

In my direct experience (I own two of them and foolishly let the 200mm go), the 135mm has amazing boka and I often use it as a "macro" lens. It is also a mainstay for indoor sports in very dark gyms. The 200mm f/2.8 is a wonderful, lightweight, and unobtrusive telephoto. I could walk about with and never had to deal with the "Ooh wow! How much did that big white lens cost you?" The 70-200 f/2.8 may well be the finest and most versatile of any of these, but there are times, places, images desired, and a host of other things that mean it can't do everything.

Comparing them, arguing one is better than the other, or dismissing any with an upper crust sniff as "not very good" simply misses the point. One uses the tool necessary to accomplish the task. If you can have only one, don't need to shoot in extreme dark, can afford the freight - the latest version of the 70-200 is a superb lens. I use it intensively. On the other hand, taint worth squat in the dark, narrow confines of the small town, rural, reservation gyms I work in. Too slow, FL too long.

The 135mm f/2.0L is a true jewel. I'll never let it go. The 70-200 is a powerful bread and butter tool with excellent AF and really fine IQ. Outdoor, BIF, landscape, many events: can't work without it.

What's your task? What's your goal? What are your resources? Depending on your answers any of these lenses can do the specific job they were designed for

Robert.



Oct 29, 2016 at 11:04 PM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


I have the Canon 1.4X TC II, but in keeping with the black motif I mated it to a Tamron 1.4X SP AF tele-extender today on a 7D2 body. A poor persons quasi-equivalent to a very light weight 450mm f/4 lens.

I was VERY pleasantly surprised with the results. It looks like it adds quite a bit of CA (in shooting circumstances susceptible to that), but that can largely be fixed in post. I didn't do any MFA adjustments (looks like a little bit of front-focus), but otherwise it definitely can produce usable results (I was shooting at f/5.6). I was even shooting late in the afternoon with less than ideal light (overcast, mist and light rain) at higher ISOs. And the short MFD makes it useful for some long-range macro work.

This is one fine lens indeed, even sans IS.



Oct 30, 2016 at 05:44 PM
newphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


OK I'm convinced. Just ordered this lens new from B&H Photo. I travel overseas once a year, Iceland this time, to photograph birds and other wildlife. I have a backup camera body, but no backup for my 100-400 II. I can use this lens with a 1.4 III on my 7Dii and it should be long enough for a backup telephoto lens.


Oct 31, 2016 at 12:37 PM
Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


Comparing these lenses is like trying to compare a Skill 77 worm drive saw, a Japanese Ryoba pull saw, and a Hilti Jigsaw. Each will cut wood. The difference is in accuracy, speed, type of cut needed, and final product.


Anytime you consider a fixed focal length lens it is only prudent to see whether a more versatile zoom lens will work for you, so this comparison is a bit strained. In the olden days primes were always superior optically to zooms, but these days this has largely passed. Also a long lens (such as a 200mm) has about the same volume as a 70-200mm zoom, although their weights will differ, so this is worth bearing in mind since it has to fit in a bag too. It's a done deal for the OP anyway. All I am saying is I went through exactly the same process. I still have the 135 f2, but frequently wonder why I keep it.

Edited on Jan 03, 2017 at 04:20 PM · View previous versions



Nov 03, 2016 at 10:05 AM
jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


Robin Smith wrote:
Anytime you consider a fixed focal length lens it is only prudent to see whether a more versatile zoom lens will work for you, so this comparison is a bit strained. In the olden days primes were always superior optically to zoom, but these days this has largely passed. Also a long lens (such as a 200mm) is about the same in volume as a 70-200mm zoom, although not in weight, so this is worth bearing in mind since it has to fit in a bag too. It's a done deal for the OP anyway. All I am saying
...Show more

I love the 135L and have gotten some great shots with it, that I attribute to the character of the lens in a good environment that took the image, IMO, up a notch, by using it but too seldom do I now use it, which is a shame. The 100-400II, larger, heavier but offers that excellent reach. I have the 70-200II but don't use it much because of the weight and I do a lot of documentation where weight is important so I have the 70-200 f4 IS coming in to see how it does. Use the tool that works.



Nov 03, 2016 at 11:41 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


jamato8 wrote:
I love the 135L and have gotten some great shots with it, that I attribute to the character of the lens in a good environment that took the image, IMO, up a notch, by using it but too seldom do I now use it, which is a shame. The 100-400II, larger, heavier but offers that excellent reach. I have the 70-200II but don't use it much because of the weight and I do a lot of documentation where weight is important so I have the 70-200 f4 IS coming in to see how it does. Use the tool that works.
...Show more

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is in my bag more than any other single lens. It's a tiny bit soft at the long end, but it's simply an OUTSTANDING lens, and won't break the bank or your back.

There can be more discipline involved when working with fixed length lenses and that often forces one to pay more attention to composition; also looking for a narrower range of compositions. Some of the great photographers of the past used single focal length lenses and they did pretty damn well.

The reasons for my purchase of this lens were outlined in a previous post. After some experience with the lens, I'm a firm believer that it will assist me accomplishing every single one of them with aplomb.



Nov 03, 2016 at 03:56 PM
newphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


New 200mm F2.8 with 1.4x III on a 7D II. Just trying it out in my backyard. Cropped - what say you?







Nov 03, 2016 at 06:43 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


That'll do.


Nov 03, 2016 at 06:54 PM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


Looks pretty good. Can you show the original full-size image too? (That way we can see how much of a crop your image above is.)

Can you also supply us with EXIF metadata? (e.g. ISO, shutter speed, aperture)




Nov 04, 2016 at 09:13 AM
rstoddard11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


I have one on a 6D

While not as convenient as the 70-200 f4 I use sometimes for landscape, here is the difference.

The photos you take with this lens will look "different", 3 dimensional and amazing.

You can walk around a city, take telephoto shots and not be noticed with a white lens.

I love mine. I got a "bargain" copy on KEH for $450 and it is one of my favorite lenses.

At 2.8 it has great bokeh and looks good. At 3.5 it is much sharper. I usually shoot at f3.5 or f4.0 unless I am going for thin depth of field.



Nov 04, 2016 at 09:23 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


rstoddard11 wrote:
The photos you take with this lens will look "different"


+1 @ the prime affords a different drawing style.

For some the diff's in drawing style are there to be enjoyed. For others, they won't appreciate the diff's.

IIRC, the 200/2.8 shares similar lens design approach as the 135/2.0 (also the 100/2.0). I've got the 100/2.0 and the 200/2.8 in my bag as bookends (versatility pairing), instead of the venerable 135/2.0. While not the exact same as the 135/2.0 ... of similar mindset.



Nov 05, 2016 at 07:38 AM
Daniel Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


Have used the original 200 f/2.8 for more than a decade. Light and easy to handle. Shooting news work the light weight is nice to have. In some venues the smaller black lens is much less intrusive than the big white magic drainpipe of a zoom.
The images look good. Just wish it were as crisp as the 400 f/2.8, but you can't have everything.



Nov 05, 2016 at 08:56 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


Daniel Smith wrote:
Have used the original 200 f/2.8 for more than a decade. Light and easy to handle. Shooting news work the light weight is nice to have. In some venues the smaller black lens is much less intrusive than the big white magic drainpipe of a zoom.
The images look good. Just wish it were as crisp as the 400 f/2.8, but you can't have everything.


What's the price difference between the 200mm f/2.8 + 1.4X TC III combination and a 400mm f/2.8 big white?

Yes, you can't have everything.



Nov 05, 2016 at 09:37 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


I've had a couple of weeks of casual shooting experience with the lens and absolutely love it. It's very sharp wide-open and razor sharp by f/4. I must have picked up a very good copy.

Many of the following images (in 2 posts) were shot in fading light and most are shown highly cropped. Some were shot with a 1.4x TC attached (EFL~450mm f/4 lens with the 7D2). Image stabilization IS missed, but can be worked around in most circumstances. The relatively short MFD is also very useful.

I can wholeheartedly recommend this lens.





















Edited on Nov 19, 2016 at 11:02 PM · View previous versions



Nov 19, 2016 at 10:54 PM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


Both of the portraits are highly cropped. The squirrel was shot with a 1.4X TC attached. The beautiful young lady was performing in her high school play and was imaged from about 80 feet away.

















Nov 19, 2016 at 10:58 PM
newphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


cameron12x wrote:
Looks pretty good. Can you show the original full-size image too? (That way we can see how much of a crop your image above is.)

Can you also supply us with EXIF metadata? (e.g. ISO, shutter speed, aperture)


I thought the EXIF data would still be attached. I didn't intentionally hide it. The crop is about 30%, but I no longer have the original.



Nov 19, 2016 at 11:04 PM
shutterbug guy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


I've owned both versions keeping the first version because of it's built in lens hood. It's probably not quite as sharp as my 70-200 f2.8II but it's so close it doesn't matter. It's my go to lens when I'm traveling light, very light and compact. Works good with a 1.4 TC, sharper than my 70-300 IS USM with it attached.

Here's an example of it with the 1.4 TC.









Nov 20, 2016 at 02:46 AM
rstoddard11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Canon 200mm f/2.8L II


I also have the 100mm 2.0 and 200 2.8.

the 200mm 2.8 is just so easy to throw in a camera bag. I have a tripod ring on mine and have used it with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters when I can't afford to haul around a large giant white lens.

For instance, I will take this lens in my bag while hiking and have a normal zoom on. If I see an owl or a hawk or something I want to shoot far, its light enough that I can pop it on and get a close shot. otherwise I used to just hike with the one lens. When I am going up mountains or more strenuous adventures, the 100mm comes along instead.

Also, the 100mm 2.0 is really underrated. It probably has produced most of my favorite landscape photos even though it is known for portraits. I'd say it is darn close to the 135mm f2 and half the size.

I attached some images below. Some were shot with a kenko pro 300 1.4 teleconverter and even cropped significantly.






















Dec 14, 2016 at 02:54 PM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.