I am considering the unthinkable, selling my 200 1.8 is my sharpest lens and I absolutly love it, but it is growing more in more in disuse as I now have a 400 2.8 that i use for wildlife images. Its also becoming more weildy and hard to use in portraits and I am considering a 70-200 2.8L IS...I can not justify both and honestly I am a bit hard up for cash at the moment.

Now that I am shooting full frame the DOF at 1.8 is just a little too much and I end up stopping the lens down to 2.2 or 2.5 for most portrait shots now anyhow, just a hair away from 2.8 of the 70-200

So, anyone parted with a 200 1.8 and been able to live a happy life without it does the 70-200 2.8 do well enough that I can live without it? Or should i keep the beast forever?

Sorry for thinking outloud but I am really torn on this!

sold mine before the 200/2 surfaced, never looked back. have a 135/2 for thin dof portraits and, like you, use a 400/2.8 for the long stuff. no regrets, and the excess cash was put to other use very happily.

The first 200 f/1.8 I got almost four years ago. Paid an uncomfortably high price for it, but it was kinda mint. After two weeks I ended up returning it......I felt it was way too much money for the use I could get out of it.
Lo and behold, a few months after that I started looking again.....bought my second 200 f/1.8 for a better price and the lens even sharper. Increased my use of the lens significantly by making an effort in that direction. The more I used it the better I liked it. Then I decided I needed a backup 200 f/1.8....so I started looking again

It is an awesome lens and a triumph of sorts for the folks who designed it and were building it. I can't be without it any longer.

I was afraid you would show up on this discussion petkal
I need to win the lottery fast so i can keep it..and buy a backup

PetKal wrote:
The first 200 f/1.8 I got almost four years ago. Paid an uncomfortably high price for it, but it was kinda mint. After two weeks I ended up returning it......I felt it was way too much money for the use I could get out of it.
Lo and behold, a few months after that I started looking again.....bought my second 200 f/1.8 for a better price and the lens even sharper. Increased my use of the lens significantly by making an effort in that direction. The more I used it the better I liked it. Then I decided I needed a backup 200 f/1.8....so I started looking again

It is an awesome lens and a triumph of sorts for the folks who designed it and were building it. I can't be without it any longer.

But do you have a backup to the backup...

helimat wrote:
PetKal wrote:
The first 200 f/1.8 I got almost four years ago. Paid an uncomfortably high price for it, but it was kinda mint. After two weeks I ended up returning it......I felt it was way too much money for the use I could get out of it.
Lo and behold, a few months after that I started looking again.....bought my second 200 f/1.8 for a better price and the lens even sharper. Increased my use of the lens significantly by making an effort in that direction. The more I used it the better I liked it. Then I decided I needed a backup 200 f/1.8....so I started looking again

It is an awesome lens and a triumph of sorts for the folks who designed it and were building it. I can't be without it any longer.

But do you have a backup to the backup...

Hell, if Ed Sawyer is true to his word, he might find me another copy for $2,000 perhaps. Helimat....consider this.....that would be cheaper than these new lenses: 14L MkII, 17mm and 24mm new TS-E lenses and 28-300L.

I simply have to love the lens that gets me a 100% crop like this.

don't believe peter. he gets all these great duck and bird shots and suggests it is the lens he uses. kinda like lars and his 85L. some people just have exceptional talent.

i too have this lens and would find it hard to give up.

PetKal wrote:
The first 200 f/1.8 I got almost four years ago. Paid an uncomfortably high price for it, but it was kinda mint. After two weeks I ended up returning it......I felt it was way too much money for the use I could get out of it.
Lo and behold, a few months after that I started looking again.....bought my second 200 f/1.8 for a better price and the lens even sharper. Increased my use of the lens significantly by making an effort in that direction. The more I used it the better I liked it. Then I decided I needed a backup 200 f/1.8....so I started looking again

It is an awesome lens and a triumph of sorts for the folks who designed it and were building it. I can't be without it any longer.

You're a big help...

Petkal;

I would love to find a $2000 200/1.8... Although I don't see a backup in my future, nor a backup for the backup. Perhaps one of your backups should be safely stored on Vancouver Island in case of some sort of prairie flood or some other sort of mishap...

I don't think I could do it. seller's remorse would drive me to purchase another.

owning both the 200 1.8 and the 200 2.0 really says something about the 1.8 keeda.

Nathan,

My hands have stopped shaking enough to type this .

There may well be very good practical reasons for selling your 200/1.8, but don't make the mistake of believing that a 70-200/2.8 will give you the same type of shots as your 200.....not gonna happen.

200 1.8L @ f/1.8


70-200 2.8L IS @ f/2.8, 140mm


70-200 2.8L IS @ f/2.8, 200mm


Also, the 200 and 400 make for a perfect combo, and when the 400 is too long, you can throw a 1.4x on the shorter lens and have 280 @ f/2.5

280mm @ f/2.8



Not telling you anything you don't already know, just trying to make this harder for you .

the 2.0 was just a hedge in the unfortunate event of something gone bad with the 1.8 and not being able to find another pristine/sharp copy. And I almost brought another one but someone beat me to it. Too much contemplation on my part. I can always use the cash though...

http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-CANON-EF-200mm-F1-8-F-1-8-L-USM-LENS-Mint-Alu-Case_W0QQitemZ120438972014QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item1c0ab8de6e&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A13%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

I've been thinking of selling mine , but I would only do it for the 200 2.0 and at this time I don't have the extra cash to throw towards the newer version. I also must say that I cant see my lens line up without either one. So its one or the other for me. I primarily shoot sports and love the 1.8 version with a 1.4 ex for 2.5/280mm on a mk3 . Not much you cant shoot with that combo.

Andy

I'd say sell it and don't look back. get the 200/2 if the need arises. I passed on a couple of 200/1.8s a year or two ago @ $2300ish.

-Ed

...cold dead hands.

I sold mine because I do a lot of low-light work with slow-moving subjects where the lack of IS is a handicap. I found I could obtain reliably better results with the 70-200 IS in low light despite it being 1.5 stops slower. (Sports would be a different matter.)

Funny though, I haven't been all that tempted by the 200 2.0... On full frame I will grab the 300 2.8 to complement the zoom... If I did not already own the 300, then the 200 plus 1.4 TC would be a great combo.

I have the 200 F2.0 and use it everywhere. The 200mm F2.8 is not really close in IQ and it's good.

SoundHound wrote:
I have the 200 F2.0 and use it everywhere. The 200mm F2.8 is not really close in IQ and it's good.

Bruce, the 200 f/2.8 may not be quite "there" (well, just look at its price relative to the 200 f/2 IS) but the 200 f/1.8 is. Not saying the 200 f/1.8 is a better lens, it's just 1/3 stop faster and similarly sharp in the center. Lest we forget, these days it's much cheaper too.

I like using the 200 f/1.8 very much. However, for demanding shot conditions, I'd take the 200 f/2 IS........because of IS, much lighter and easier to hand-hold, and its AF drive is probably twice as fast, i.e., 0.3 sec (or better) compared to 0.6 sec.

The 200/1.8 will continue to depreciate in the coming months but it will appreciate again in maybe a couple of years .... as it will become a rare/collectible lens in another decade. I have no intention of selling mine.

PetKal wrote:
and its AF drive is probably twice as fast, i.e., 0.3 sec (or better) compared to 0.6 sec.

Twice as fast?
Really?

I knew it was faster, but not twice as fast.

fraga wrote:
PetKal wrote:
and its AF drive is probably twice as fast, i.e., 0.3 sec (or better) compared to 0.6 sec.

Twice as fast?
Really?

I knew it was faster, but not twice as fast.

Luis, let me be a bit more precise here:
Canon source gives the AF speed spec for the 200 f/1.8 as 0.6 sec.
The 200 f/2 IS AF speed of 0.3 sec is my estimate, however, I don't think I could be off by much.

I shouldn't post anything because I have never used the 200 1.8. Rarified air for me. But even so--

Wow! Russ's pictures I think say it all. The difference in the backgound of those shots has got to be worth the price of admission, at least for those of you who are selling shots.

My humble opinion from the cheap seats.

Lorin

I sold mine about a year ago, and in that time i could have done with it maybe twice.
Like you FF is my main camera now, and F1.8 @ 200mm for portraits is getting a little silly

I have been looking at a 135f2 to fill the spot.