I am thinking about getting a 200mm f2.8 for my Rebel XT, but first a few questions.
What are the differences between the versions I and II of the 200mm f2.8? Availability, usm, price, build quality, etc.
What sort of reach can I get with the 200mm + a teleconverter (1.4 or 2x) on my crop body and will it seriously affect focusing speed and IQ? Is the reach 200x1.6x1.4?
How fast is the focusing, how good is the IQ? I have been looking for photographs taken with the 200mm prime but have not had much luck, usually getting images from a 70-200 model. Any example photos taken with the lens would be appreciated.
And finally, to anyone who owns or has owned this lens, what are your thoughts? Right now I have a wide angle and a walk around lens, so I am looking for a good, affordable telephoto (or medium telephoto since I cannot afford a quality longer reach lens). The low price range and L quality make this lens seem ideal, am I overlooking anything?
You might consider reading reviews to see the difference between the Mark I and Mark II - you can't expect us to do ALL your research for you. Have a look at LensPlay.com, for example, as well as reading the reviews right here.
I have the Mark II, and it's a good lens for the money. I recently bought the 200mm f2L IS, however
The Mark II is well-made, a simple but effective design, and I never had any trouble with it. Focuses quickly, image quality is excellent (OK, the f2 is better, but it ought to be with several times the weight and a huge objective lens).
Adding a teleconverter will reduce image quality, and it will slow focussing down (partly because of the reduced light - the 1.4x costs you one stop; the 2x costs you two stops). Note that the camera will be on the edge of its autofocus range with the 2x TC. The "effective focal length" is 200x1.6xTC, yes.
This is a good, affordable telephoto lens, but you might get more use from the amazing 135mm f2L - it's a few more dollars, but it's another level up. It's a fine portrait lens, and useful for indoor sports. It's also extremely fast to focus (I contend that sometimes it focuses BEFORE you press the button ).
I have the Mark I and it has a built-in hood. It also has USM and focuses rapidly. It is black and has great IQ and light in weight.
Tony's last paragraph makes a good point. 200 x 1.6x crop is really long so you need to think about the usage before purchasing. I've used both and I can't say the 135L is "better" per se but extra stop is really helpful when the lighting is poor.
Improved coatings on the version II and larger detachable hood. Both take the 1.4X well and I've even had decent results
stacking 1.4's with a 1DmkII for BIF in a pinch. Tried a couple 2x TC's (Canon/Kenko) and didn't much care for them on this lens.
Fast AF, great color/contrast and bokeh for this FL. One of the "bargain" L's. I shoot mostly Nikon now but still have one on a 40D
for snipin' peeps at events. Wide open goodness.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Predictably, Peter piped in with appropriate plumage plucked from the sky. Great example, Eh
We horse around but DO love this lens.
Very nice, good input/info and great shots. I believe my mind is made up, I can't really consider more expensive glass at the moment so I guess I was just looking for some reassurance that this is a fine lens that I will use often. Thanks for the responses.
p.s. more shots are welcome, i like what i see and i'd like to see more of what this lens can do.
I haven't used either but I would love to have either one and the 70-200mm F2.8 will be my next purchase, but I found this website and it has quite a few samples from lots and lots of lenses. These are samples from the 200mm F2.8 http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=597
Love that horse photo Trench. Kinda makes me want to get another 200 2.8; either version. Both are great lenses and better IQ, IMHO, than either of the 2.8 zooms.
bestfromnw wrote:
200mm is a fine lens, but for a couple more bills you could get 70-200 which is very similar in IQ while being a zoom lens
Actually, that's not true. The 200f2.8 is sharper wide open, in the corners, in close focusing distances and with the TCs. Stopped down and in the center, however, there is not much difference to the zoom at 200mm.
Only the most expensive lenses have better IQ imho. Other posters have already praised the AF. I don’t think you will find anybody that finds a weakness with this lens. The zoom is more versatile of course, but the extra half kg is at least stopping me from buying it.
However, what I have come to realize with the FL is that it’s typically too long on a crop body to shoot people. You need a lot of space and usually something is in the way, if you can’t arrange the shot that is. In addition, the angle of view is so narrow that you hardly ever get any context (background) to your picture, which I think is boring in the long run.
At the same time I think it’s way too short for anything but tame or “semi-tame” animals. I was thinking of a converter myself, but I have realized that a 1.4x will not help much and a 2x seems to take the edge of the IQ. I suggest you make a special post regarding its wildlife performance if you are interested in that.
But if the FL is right for you, you will not regret it. I think I can promise that.
OK, please let me throw my two cents in here. I have the 200mm L 2.8 mk II. Never used the mk I so I cannot comment on that one. But mine is just incredible. I bought it kind of on a whim about a month ago but it is pretty much my favorite lens now, and I am trying to come up with reasons to use it since I don't usually do much telephoto. First day I got it was also right when I got my new 5d mkII, so I decided to experiment with them together that night--my friend's band was playing at a local club, so I took the camera with that lens down with me. I never shoot bands, I do tripod work, so I figured it would be a mess, especially having not used that lens before. The results were stunning--a group of use stood outside afterward, just marveling. I never even got off the barstool, just sat there with a flash on the camera shooting closeups of peoples' faces when they sang. It was so crisp and sharp that we were able to count peoples' nose hairs (much to their chagrin). Granted, part of that is because I was using the 5d mkII as well, but the lens is fantastic on any camera. And on the cropped sensor you will have even more reach. Now regarding the 1.4x adapter, I also have that and have tried it with the lens. I definitely see a lessening of quality. When I use it on a tripod and am very, very deliberate with my set up then it's OK and there is not much drop off. But anything less than that I definitely notice a difference and don't like it. BUT--that being said, the adapter is relatively cheap, and with it and the 200 prime you get an almost 300mm lens that, even in degraded quality, is probably still better than most 300mm primes, and I am sure considerably better than a 300mm zoom.
I've owned the EF 200 2.8L USM since 1995. It's among my fav lenses and is sharp as a tack and ultra fast focusing (ring-USM and internal focus). I oft use it with the Extender 1.4X and it's as sharp as the 300 4L IS USM prime and nearly as good as the EF 300 4L USM. I've also briefly used a friend's MK II and, save the detachable hood, build quality, AF speed and IQ are exactly the same. I suspect the larger detachable hood is more effective at stopping stray light but the built-in hood of the MK I has one huge advantage: it's always there when you need it.
However, if I was buying now, I'd buy the MK II simply because it's currently in production and newer. Incidentally both versions use the same tripod ring.
I just picked this lens (version II) up to finish off my prime collection (35L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 200L). This lens focuses very fast! You will not be disappointed with the AF speed. As for sharpness, it is among the best. It is very sharp wide open and gets even better (hard to believe) stopped down. It is optically better than the 70-200 2.8 @ 200mm and the zoom is a sharp lens. For the price, you cannot go wrong with the 200L 2.8.
dslrintraining wrote:
She was just grazing, could be some lichen or dried out weeds. These deer are in the woods next to my house. I put out corn for them to eat; they get fed and I get photos
