about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
170 349994 Aug 9, 2016
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $614.16
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.74
9.68
9.8
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:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
       †††
drbenjamin
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 46
Review Date: Mar 17, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $530.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Beautiful images, small black and discreet.
Cons:
you will need good technique to use this handheld on a crop camera.

This lens makes me want to go out and take pictures. It is hands down my favorite lens, and has motivated me to save up for other Canon L primes.

Mar 17, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add drbenjamin to your Buddy List  
James pf Chow
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 19, 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 1
Review Date: Feb 18, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Ultra Fast AF, high sharpness and contrast, very good color rendition. Relative light in weight for an L Lens with excellent build quality, and it is BLACK.
Cons:
None really for what it is designed for. No IS but no issue.

Read lots of FM review on this marvellous prime ...... I was considering between EF70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM and EF200mm f/2.8L II USM but decided to go for 200mm due to it's f/2.8, size/weight and BLACK, and never regreted buying it when an excellent copy was available in the market recently.

Sharp, sharp and sharp - this is a sharp lens with excellent bokeh and the AF is ultra fast. I seriously doubt even the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS differs much at all; maybe possibly due to it's IS function. 200mm f/2.8L is very consistent over a wide range of shotting distance and remain crystal clear optically even with no IS feature provided. No complaint on zoom capability as it is designed as a prime. The hood looks a bit big but does serve the lens well. No flare was noticeable with this lens with the said hood.

I strongly recommend this lens for what it is; a long, fast, consistent with good design ergonomy, and provide crystal clear images with excellent colour rendition and bokeh. Very user freindly lens.

This is quite remarkable lens for the price. Although not as versatile as 70-200 zoomers but optically at par if not more superior at 200mm.

It certainly gives sharp images with nice colours and good bokeh.

Some first few photos taken with my new EF200mm f/2.8L:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/393812206_dfc24b7f72_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/393812248_a718e8c87c_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/393812060_c9527206a0_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/393812028_22a60b1a69_o.jpg


Feb 18, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add James pf Chow to your Buddy List  
tmr_wa
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1023
Review Date: Feb 10, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros:
Cons:

As others have noted, Canon has a reputation for producing high-quality telephoto lenses and the 200/2.8L (mk II) doesnít disappoint. The 200/2.8L is very sharp, even wide open. On my 10D, the lens produces images with wonderful color, great contrast, and creamy bokeh; if you have the room, this makes for an outstanding portrait lens. I typically use the lens for outdoor portraits, outdoor sports where I have access to the sidelines, and landscape applications where I frequently like to isolate patterns. The lens works splendidly for outdoor action, even under cloudy or twilight conditions.

Here are a few of my favorites:

http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/62948634.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/62949632.jpg

I very much like this lens on a 1.6x DSLR when I need some extra reach. The purchase of something like a 300/2.8 doesnít make financial sense for me, nor would I want to carry one of the longer telephotos for any significant time or distance. The 200/2.8 on my 10D makes for a fine compromise. I consistently find that the 200/2.8 is on the camera when some of my best photographs are printed. That said, I do find myself using the 135/2 a bit more frequently than the 200/2.8, but if I was using a full-frame DSLR, I think the 200/2.8 would see even more use. In short, the 200/2.8 is capable of producing stunning, professional-grade images.

The 200/2.8 is built very solidly and the AF snaps into focus with little hesitation. While this isnít a small lens, especially with the hood attached, the lens is fairly compact relative to 70-200/2.8 telephoto zooms. Also, the price of the 200/2.8 is much less than the Canon 70-200/2.8 zooms. I probably will eventually pick up the optional tripod mount for the 200, primarily because this makes changes in horizontal to vertical (and vice versa) orientation easier.

I have owned a 70-200/4L and while this zoom is capable of producing very sharp images, it had several shortcomings for my uses. First, the zoom was a bit too long, even unattached to the camera, to fit in my favorite small camera bag. Second, I typically found myself at the long end of the zoom and it was at 200mm that I often wished for the ability to open up to f/2.8 as this better allows action-stopping shutter speeds. Finally, I found the white color of the zoom to be a bit too conspicuous for my taste. Therefore, I sold the 70-200/4 and purchased the 200/2.8. I havenít regretted this decision for a second.

If you need a 200mm lens and don't want to carry or pay for a 70-200 zoom, this L lens won't disappoint.


Feb 10, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tmr_wa to your Buddy List  
LMCasey
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 114
Review Date: Jan 27, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $635.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp from corner to corner even at f2.8. Light, excellent build quality, great focus on my crop bodies. Quite a bargain
Cons:
None

This lens is flawless optically as far as I can see. I am using it on crop bodies only so far. Shoot it wide open and look at the great corner to corner performance. Sharp, nice bokeh. Unlike other users, I have no problem with the hood. This lens is much lighter than the 70-200 2.8 zooms, so if you don't need a zoom, this might just be perfect for you.

This lens is quite a bargain.



Jan 27, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add LMCasey to your Buddy List  
Mike Pearson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 243
Review Date: Jan 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $660.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, Light, Fast, Overall Image Quality
Cons:
Not a zoom

I have had this lens for a few years along with a 35mm f2 and a 85mm f1.8 as my basic beginner set. The 200mm f2.8 has always been my favorite. It has become the standard by which I measure everything else, and most everything else falls short (though I must admit I haven't tried the 135 mm f2.0 which I understand is outstanding).

The worst I can say about this lens is that it is not a zoom. But, the truth is I have become a better, smarter, photographer by having to think about and visualize my shots.


Jan 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Mike Pearson to your Buddy List  
Wirelezzz
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 23, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
Review Date: Jan 20, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp,amazing Color and Contrast, Light.Excellent Build
Cons:
non

One of the best lenses i have used, This lens is just amazing on my 30D , another must have lens.

Jan 20, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Wirelezzz to your Buddy List  
alfieri
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 178
Review Date: Jan 15, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $625.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: all the greatness of the 135/2L except at 200/2.8; price; weight; focus speed and reliability; no longer need to use the 1.4x TC with the 135/2L (not that it's a very noticeable loss in IQ)
Cons:
lens hood hard to get on and off (could be my sample only); wish it had f/2 and IS for less than $1500

sample images and ramblings:

http://alfieri.smugmug.com/gallery/2333587

if you like the 135/2L on a 1.6x crop body, you'll like the 200/2.8L II on a full-frame body. 135/2L on FF is great, but less useful since i got the 85/1.2L for portraits, so i sold the 135/2L.

the 200/2.8L II does not get the attention that it deserves.


Jan 15, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add alfieri to your Buddy List  
Thomas Ware
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 17, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, colours, looks rather innocent without hood wherefore it is good for street photography family gatherings and other places where you do not want to get too much attention. Excellent price/quality ratio.
Cons:
None.

This is quite remarkable lens for the price. Although not as versatile as 70-200 series, it certainly gives sharp images with nice colours and good bokeh. Although I own 70-200/2.8 (non IS), I like to use this lens in family gatherings and in street photography, where it does not warrant unnecessary attention (if you do not use the lens hood).

Nov 17, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Thomas Ware to your Buddy List  
Aaron Dove
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Nov 5, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: PRICE! fairly lightweight, outstanding image quality, smokin' fast autofocus
Cons:
nothing major.

at 650 crackers you can't beat this L lens. the image quality is incredible, and the bokeh is especially nice. i've found the fast autofocus makes this a killer airshow glass. highly recommended!

Nov 5, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Aaron Dove to your Buddy List  
Dave Indech
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 53
Review Date: Nov 4, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $480.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Very consistent; f/2.8 to f/8 is about the same. No flare. Relatively small, black, light. Quick AF. Excellent build. Common L filter size; 72mm.
Cons:
No IS. No versatility.

The best reason to buy an L is because it can function wide open. If the lens says f/2, or f/2.8, output at that aperture will hold its own against the same picture stopped down.

And so it is here; the best part of this lens is that it doesn't matter what aperture you use. The only reason to use anything but f/2.8 is if you want more DOF. Sharpness is about the same from f/2.8 to around f/8.

Because it's a prime, it has all the usual prime advantages; it's 2 inches shorter than the 70-200/2.8 zooms, thinner, much lighter, black, and in general a lot less scary. It also flares less.

I didn't say anything there about optics.

This is a sharp lens, but I don't think it's quite what people make it out to be. I strongly suspect a 70-200/4 would give it a run at any aperture, and I doubt the 70-200/2.8 differs at all. If it has an edge on the 2.8 IS, it's not by much.

Moreover, I think my 50/1.4 would beat it at any aperture with the same framing.

Unlike the 50/1.4 and the 100/2 though, it's very strong at any distance. No caveats about shooting 100m or 5m away. Doesn't matter, this 200/2.8L is utterly consistent.

There's only one problem with this lens:

It doesn't zoom. Anytime you're constrained to a certain location, you're going to want something that'll let you change the framing. That means practically all sporting events. Unless you've got a second body with a 135/2, this is not the the strongest lens for varying distances.

320mm on a crop body does not lend itself to versatility.

As a walkaround lens, or if the action is set at a certain constant distance, it's fine, but I'm thinking of trading mine for a zoom.

So, I strongly recommend this lens for what it is; a long, fast, consistent, discrete telephoto that mates well with a 1.4X teleconverter. I'd recommend the 28-70/2.8L as well, but like that lens, if you have a crop body, think long and hard if the working range is one you want.


Nov 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Dave Indech to your Buddy List  
photorebel
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 642
Review Date: Oct 30, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Light, sharp, fast...easily hand holdable...faster focusing than 70-200 2.8L
Cons:
Sometimes you just need the convenience of a zoom. Shooting football, I missed a few shots because I was too close.

I tried it out one night at highschool football game. Horrible lighting. I missed a few shots, because I was too close. Thought about returning it, and sticking with the 70-200 f/2.8.
That was before I saw the photos on my desktop.
Sharp, well focused, good color. A higher percentage of keepers than I ever got with the 70-200 f/2.8.
Bottom line, I'm selling the 70-200 f/2.8..and keeping the 200 f/2.8


Oct 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add photorebel to your Buddy List  
jdryan3
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 328
Review Date: Oct 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $660.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp even at f/2.8, price, weight, length (not including hood)
Cons:
non-IS = faster speed required, but not great for low light no-tripod situations,

Excellent lens. Build is great and very sharp. I wanted something in the 200 range, so I read this forum and others at length and decided to get this over the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It was $1K less and didn't need anything in the 85 or 100 range (I have primes). First experience outdoors was great: great bokah, DOF was nice, color very rich.

So why did I return it? I took it to an indoor event with mixed low light and was disappointed with about 1/2 my images, for 2 reasons. While I try to position myself, turns out I do need a zoom if only because I need to backoff just a bit sometimes (if only to 150 or 175). Also couldn't get decent images at 1/125 or slower, but light required that or 1/60 (all handheld).

Great lens & higly recommended- just make sure it fits your shooting style. BTW, while it is black, you are anything but unnoticed once you put that hood on ;-)


Oct 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jdryan3 to your Buddy List  
Jake Holt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Oct 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Image quality, size, build quality, price, AF speed
Cons:
none

This lens is a raging bargain - one of the best price/performance ratios of Canon's entire lens lineup. It's light yet built well, and it's razor sharp. As my non-photographically inclined girlfriend said after viewing some photos taken with this lens, "it's sharper than real life!" I.S. would be nice, but then it would be heavy and much more expensive, so as it is, it's pretty much perfect. Now my non-L primes seem oh so pedestrian by comparison.

Oct 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jake Holt to your Buddy List  
Baytoven
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 25
Review Date: Oct 8, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Size, Sharpness and Contrast, Fast AF, Picture Quality, Price
Cons:
None

Excellent prime especially if one shoots on the long end. Picture quality is outstanding. You won't regret owning this gem.

Oct 8, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Baytoven to your Buddy List  
penghai
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: May 21, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 938
Review Date: Aug 29, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: $600.00

Pros: Very fast AF, great color anbd contrast, great build, reliable, and work well with 1.4TC and extension tubes. And it's black.
Cons:
None.

Just add to my previous comments.

With a tripod colloar and extension tubes, this lens combo is excellent for close up of flowers and butterflies. I found I prefer this combo over my Canon 100mm macro and Canon 135mm. And it's less than half the weight of a 70-200 f2.8 IS!

This is a real performer!


Aug 29, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add penghai to your Buddy List  
dwill23
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 17, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $619.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Size, weight, price, f2.8, sharp at f2.8!! fast auto focus!!! wow!
Cons:
tripod collar isn't included.

Don't have $1700 to drop on the 70-200 f2.8 IS? That's a good thing!! Your wallet is going to save you from making a big mistake by not letting you buy the 70-200.

This lens has 9 peices of glass.
The 70-200 has 32 peices of glass. GEE i wonder which is sharper?? You don't have to be a wizz kid to know this lens with only 39.1% as much glass as the 70-200 IS is a WORLD sharper, and focuses WAAAY faster!!

I sold my 70-200 IS because it wasn't sharp at F2.8 at all. I owned the NON-IS and IS version, and hated both!

I shoot sports, so i can't set up my shot, and they are running around as fast as they can, so i need my gear to focus very very fast, and work well at F2.8 for night NCAA football games.

This lens does just that. Do no be fooled into think the 70-200 is better, because by all means it is not!!

There is a famous saying "if your photos aren't turning out well, get closer". meaning don't zoom out, zoom in! In this case you can't zoom out, and for me that's rarely a problem!

I shoot with a 300mm + 1.4x teleconverter = 420mm, and now this lens, and it works out perfect for me!

I could not be happier with this lens over the 70-200. This is what i really wanted in the 1st place, only half the price!! Sharp, and useable at F2.8! yay!!

And it weights less than half as much as the 70-200!

Dig deep and you'll see that the 70-200 blows, and the fixed 200mm ROCKS!

Buy this lens, save money, get better photos, be happy!




Aug 17, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dwill23 to your Buddy List  

†††



Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
170 349994 Aug 9, 2016
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $614.16
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.74
9.68
9.8
1ef200mmf_28_1_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next