backup
Photoshop actions
 
 

Search Used

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
174 354172 Nov 23, 2016
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $614.16
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.72
9.65
9.7
1ef200mmf_28_1_1_

Specifications:
Telephoto lens boasting high image quality and carrying ease. With two UD-glass elements and rear focusing to correct aberrations, image delineation is extremely sharp. Background blur is also natural-looking, as was simulated by Canon. The lens comes with a dedicated, detachable hood.


 


Page:  10 · 11 
          
neilgundel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31
Review Date: Dec 2, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $675.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Size & weight. Sharpness, Color, Bokeh Price
Cons:
Doesn't zoom. Doesn't have four-wheel drive.

This lens is a little better than the 70-200/2.8 and WAY smaller and lighter.

Images from this one are virtually identical to those from the 135/2 - the only reason to stop down is to get depth of field.

Nearly perfect performance, fast autofocus, excellent color, bokeh, you name it. I'm still using film and scanning it, but I suspect that this lens would be truly remarkable on a 1Ds MkII.


Dec 2, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add neilgundel to your Buddy List  
CarlG
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 11, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6505
Review Date: Nov 23, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $530.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Super sharp, great contrast and accurate colors. It is not white and very easy to handhold - well balanced with the 1D Mark II
Cons:
Not as sharp at f/2.8 as I would have hoped but at f/4 and smaller - stellar!

What can I say but I fell in love all over again after shooting with this lens! My first love affair was with the 135 f/2 (which is still my first love - apologies to the wife, of course) but the 200 f/2.8 is right up there. I performed a very unscientific comparison of the two lenses and found that at f/5.6 and smaller, very tough to tell them apart.

My other concern was how does the 200 f/2.8 stack up against the 70-200 IS at the same focal length? Although the 70-200 IS copy I have is excellent, the 200 f/2.8 is better at this focal length. The difference is not earth shattering but enough to notice.

All in all, a super lens and a REAL SLEEPER in the "L" lens lineup - a steal, IMHO, for what they are selling for used on FM.

Highly recommended!!

Carl


Nov 23, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add CarlG to your Buddy List  
joe mama
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 4618
Review Date: Nov 17, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $535.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Small and light, super fast AF, excellent IQ (image quality)
Cons:
None

I use primes pretty much exclusively (except for the Sigma 18-50 / 2.8 -- a *great* lens!), so I have a bit of a bias towards them. The reason I prefer primes is due to their smaller size and weight and their speed. In the case of the 200 / 2.8L, however, there are equally fast 70-200 zooms but they are much more bulky and the AF is slower.

Anyway, primes make you suffer the fixed FL. However, and this could just be a personal thing, it's amazing how small of a problem this is for me. If you're locked in at 200mm, sure, you'll miss some shots at other FLs, but you'll find other shots you wouldn't normally have looked for. It would be interesting to compare how many shots I would take in a day with just a 70-200 versus just a 200. I bet they'd be close!

Primes are easier for me to use, too. I don't have to waste precious brain power trying to frame with the added variable of FL. I can use those freed up brain resources to concentrate on sex instead! : )

Seriously, there are times a prime will cost you a shot. For some people, it might be most of the time, and for them, primes are not an option. But, for me those lost shots are easily outweighed by the convenience of a smaller and lighter lens. Also, since the AF is a tad faster, I get some shots I would have otherwise missed (yes, even at 200mm!).

Anyway, this is a great lens, no doubt about it, and I use it often. Some say to use a 135 / 2L with a 1.4x TC. Well, I have a 135 / 2L (another great lens that I also use often), but haven't used it with a 1.4x TC (since I don't have one). My feelings are that the IQ would be close, but I bet the AF speed would suffer. That's just an unsubstantiated opinion, however.

So, my recommendation: get this lens if you need 200mm and are comfortable with primes! You can see pics with it on my pbase account: http://www.pbase.com/joemama.


Nov 17, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add joe mama to your Buddy List  
miles0823
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1273
Review Date: Oct 30, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $519.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Everything except the big hood
Cons:
Nothing except the big hood

I have had a few L lenses. This is the best one I have had yet. Someday I hope to be able to afford a 135 2.0 also. I am sure I will be just as happy with that lens. I do miss the zoom of my 70-200 2.8, but not the weight. I LOVE THIS LENS.

Oct 30, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add miles0823 to your Buddy List  
pdhonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 11, 2003
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
Review Date: Aug 5, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: sturdy but not too heavy, super sharp and beautiful bokeh
Cons:
Not included expensive tripod mount

I bought this lens instead of the 70-200 4L which was out of stock and I don't regret it. The prime aspect is a little difficult at first but one learns to get used to evaluating the distances before hand. Great of course for head shots, gives also - with a bit more of effort - very nice full body portraits. Perfect for the kids at the beach.

Couldn't recommend it more.


Aug 5, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add pdhonte to your Buddy List  
Olsen
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 4, 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 147
Review Date: Aug 2, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $850.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Reaonably priced for high performance, lightweight and usefull for just anything from portraiture, landscape and wild animals. Just excellent with a 1,4x converter and very good with a 2x converter. Not to say a 25 mm extender ring which makes it a versatile macro tool.
Cons:
None, really, possibly with the exception of the rude and unsofisticated sun shade which can be troublesome to get off and on sometimes.

The only reasonably priced pro (L) tele lense on the EF menue. Beond this the lenses gets exessively expensive, heavy and bulky. Performance far better and a lot cheaper, a lot more compact and lighter than most of the zooms bought by most EOS system users. Possibly one of the best lenses that Canon makes. I reccommend this 200 mm 2,8 L II USM, - together with just any converter and the 25 mm extender and you have virtual photographical toolbox with a wide application range. - Far, far better buy than any zoom lense on the EF menue. One of the few lenes I have that I originally bought new together with my first EOS camera, the EOS3.

Very sharp, beautiful bukeh, fast AF, light and relatively compact to carry around. I use it a lot. Like on birds with a converter on snakes and insects with the extender and the plain lense on moose (from a car). I carry it along on long mountain treks, - it weighs practically nothing, on city tours and vacations to Asia. A 'must have' for any serious EOS shooter.

In comparison, my 300 mm 2,8 L USM hasn't been more than 500 meters from my car.


Aug 2, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Olsen to your Buddy List  
Argyle Monkey
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 282
Review Date: Jul 30, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp across the aperature range, quick AF, very compact
Cons:
None

Bought a used MK1 version of this lens. I couldn't be happier with the quality of this lens. I've never experienced flare even with the short hood. This lens produces buttery smooth bokeh wide open with thremendous sharpness. I use this lens wide open the majority of the time unless I'm trying to get more DOF.

Jul 30, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Argyle Monkey to your Buddy List  
rebel300
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 30, 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 13833
Review Date: Jun 23, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $625.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: extremely sharp on mk2
Cons:
none i can see

Very very sharp on the MK2...I see no difference between it and the 135/2...very nice lens and an easy carry...like the all black color also...

Jun 23, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews View gallery Add rebel300 to your Buddy List  
Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 33669
Review Date: Mar 13, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $610.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sharp, Build quality, Light & Compact,
Cons:
None

Very sharp even wide open. Very close to my favorite lens (135 f/2L) in everything. It looks and feels the same. The image quality is nearly the same also.

Mar 13, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Lars Johnsson to your Buddy List  
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
Review Date: Feb 2, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Superb optics, good build, low key black design, compact, light, easy to carry and handhold.
Cons:
None.

I bought the mark-I version of this lens, second hand. It's one of the best lenses I've ever used or owned. The optics were absolutely superb, and the compact size and ease of handholding allowed me to do candids, street photography and general shooting without a tripod. The AF is very very fast and silent. There was nothing really wrong with this lens, but I realized that my shooting required a zoom more often than not, so I sold this and got a 70-200/4L instead. I still miss this lens, and if I buy another one I'd never sell it again.

Feb 2, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add vince to your Buddy List  
spartan123
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3683
Review Date: Nov 18, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Everything
Cons:
none

I use this lense a lot and every time I am amazed at the quality of pictures it produces. A great bargain.

Nov 18, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add spartan123 to your Buddy List  
Quendler
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 10, 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 18
Review Date: Aug 26, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: very sharp, superb contrast, natural colors, light weight, fast AF, superb build quality, very good price (germany), 1,5m distance i.o. 1,8 at the 2,8 80-200 L used before
Cons:
sometimes I would like to have a zoom, no other negatives..

One of my favorite lenses - only the zoom I am sometimes missing (I used the 80-200 before).
I thought the 2,8/80-200 L has a superb image quality (and it has), but after buying the 2,8/200 L I really know the advantages of this prime - it is not only superb in sharpness, it also gives me pictures with superb contrast and very nice and natural colors - great!
No curves in PS needed any longer :-)))


Aug 26, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews View gallery Visit Homepage Add Quendler to your Buddy List  
Kurt Jones
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 19, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 5052
Review Date: Jun 12, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: I love the size. It's sharp as a tack. Can be used with TC's (though I haven't used one on it yet). The AF is fast and responsive. Overall a great L lens, IMHO....
Cons:
The hood's a bit large. No other's that I can think of.

As I said above, this is a nice lens if you don't need the versatility of the zoom.
I like it. I don't use this focal lenth often, but when I do, I love the images it produces.


Jun 12, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Kurt Jones to your Buddy List  
GrizzlyMike
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 403
Review Date: Mar 29, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $785.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Very sharp. Great value.
Cons:
None

Extremely sharp, even wide open. Very good value for the price. To my eyes this lens is as sharp as(if not sharper)than my recently purchased 70-200 2.8 @200mm. Very minor image quality dropoff with the use of the 1.4x extender.

The only disadvantage for me personally was the fact that this lens was not used much due to the fact that I found I rarely needed this focal length for the shooting I do. Having the utility of the 70-200 zoom is much more of an advantage in the field and there is no sacrifice in quality. Potential buyers might want to consider this if they are looking for a prime at this focal length.


Mar 29, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add GrizzlyMike to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
174 354172 Nov 23, 2016
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $614.16
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.72
9.65
9.7
1ef200mmf_28_1_1_


Page:  10 · 11