I'm thinking of picking up the Canon EF 200mm F/2.8L lens in the near future.

The version 1 lens is ~ $150 cheaper than the version 2 lens. My question is: How much better is the version 2 lens than the version 1 lens as far as optics are concerned? Are we talking night and day or only minor changes?

Optics are the same between the 2 versions, the only difference is the V1 had a built in hood that is considerably smaller than the separate hood on the V2.

formula4speed wrote:
Optics are the same between the 2 versions, the only difference is the V1 had a built in hood that is considerably smaller than the separate hood on the V2.

That's quite reassuring. For $570 used, it seems like a steal.

Like he said, the only difference is the hood. It is a great lens.

Mk 1 hood

Love the built in hood on my mkII, awesome lens. Sharpest lens I own. Mine was built in '95 and it looks brand new.

"Love the built in hood on my mkII, awesome lens. Sharpest lens I own. Mine was built in '95 and it looks brand new. "

you meant MKI, right?

The mk1 build in hood is too short and not very affective, the mk2 is better but it takes up more space in your bag. Optically is identical.

yxl122 wrote:
"Love the built in hood on my mkII, awesome lens. Sharpest lens I own. Mine was built in '95 and it looks brand new. "

you meant MKI, right?

D'OH!! Hate it when I type stupid things like that.

f/2.8 on 5d....(not bad for a 14 year old lens)....

Thumbs up for the MkI and its built in hood.

Lorin

I have the 200 2.8 (MKI) and it's kickass. Certainly among my sharpest optics. Like others have said, the optical design of the MK/MKII are the same. The earlier version merely has a slide out hood rather than twist on.

My review:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef200usm.htm

A highly recommended lens, in the same performance league as 135L: excellent IQ, very fast AF drive, small, light and unobtrusive black. The production consistency seems to be very good as we don`t hear too many `soft copy`complaints.
One of my favourite BIF lenses, although with it one has to be prepared to crop a lot and-or have access to closer targets.

I, too, really like the 200/2.8 (Mk II). I use it almost exclusively for field sports like HS football at night. I also like using it for landscapes and garden photography. And, I most like the small size (I don't like carrying around one of the 70-200/2.8 zooms) and relatively low price (I bought mine new when they were considerably cheaper than current price, but you can find good deals used).

There are advantages to the built-in hood; I've had to replace the hood due to carelessness on my part (I set the hood down during a football game while packing the camera, and forgot it).

Finally, here's one from the garden with the 200L:

I also use the lens for food photography and portraits.

Hah. Is that you in the reflection in duck's eye?

kakomu wrote:
Hah. Is that you in the reflection in duck's eye?

Well, it is. However, hard to really see me even on a 100% crop as I was down on all four low to the ground.

The 200 2.8 is an awesome lens! It is one I always regret selling but, will be buying another for sure. I had the mk2 but, everything I've heard says the mk1 is just as good.

Great lens. It's one of the few amazing L lenses for under 1k.

After so many years I wanted to buy this lens finally I got a used mk1 version, about 1 month ago. I thought I was not going to use a lot. I feel so stupid I waited so long.
Never used the mk2 version but mine is really crisp and sharp. So if you can save money and find a good used one, get it.

Well, I took the plunge and picked one up. The only concern I have is that now that it's Winter with Daylight savings time, it's getting dark before I even leave the office

I really need to insure I get out on the weekends more.