 |
|
|
IraGraham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 622
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Fast focus, sharp as a razor, awesome background blur. Made well with nice black finish.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS (Image Stablization)
|
|
|
Since I bought this lens, I am now turned on to sharp Canon L series fixed focal length lenses. I can't wait to buy the Canon 135mm 2.0L. I hear it is even sharper then the 200mm 2.8L.
|
|
 Feb 15, 2005
|
|
Bowman1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I have only owned this lens for about five months now, but I am very pleased with it. Provided I hold up my end of the bargain, the images I get with this lens are always clear and sharp. These things are practically a steal on ebay right now. For the money, this is a remarkable piece of glass that deserves a home in your camera bag.
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2005
|
|
RichieHatch
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 131
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great colour and contrast and well built. Also not to heavy and is well balanced with 20D and Grip.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Bought this lens (MK1 version) from a friend and have been very impressed so far. Its my first Canon Prime L lens and I am amazed at the sharpness, contrast and quality. It focuses very quickly also. The out of focus quality (bokeh) is extremely milky and smooth. I would say that this is a sharper lens than my 50mm f1.8. Good portrait / close wildlife lens. Highly reccommended....!
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2005
|
|
Doug Vann
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8, good solid feel, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing
|
|
|
I bought this lens used about 2 years ago. I have had several other lenses come and go over the past couple of years but this one I have kept. Nice lens to use if you are out hiking with very good sharpness. You can feel confident when shooting with this lens that you will get results that can be enlarged with good results. Bargain price for L lens quality.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2004
|
|
damonfff
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 662
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful bokeh, creamy colour, looks great on a 10D.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy. Heavy.
|
|
|
This lens makes me feel good. The photos I get from it are amazing. I'm a new prime person but now I only shoot with 3 primes and it's good. This one is a definite must have.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2004
|
|
bka20d
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1757
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $620.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
quality of the glass, size& weight, aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
all i can say is wow! the quality of the images taken with this lens blows me away! i had purchased a 70-200 2.8L and found it too heavy and large for causal shooting outings...took it back and got the 200 and have been smiling ever since.
|
|
|
Dec 3, 2004
|
|
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
|
|
CarlG
Online
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6030
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
miles0823
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1261
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Argyle Monkey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 253
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 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 31, 2004
|
|
rebel300
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 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
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Really sharp, Fast, Value for money for a L lens
|
|
Cons:
|
None (except is is not a zoom)
|
|
|
Built quality is excellent. Photos taken are really sharp and of excellent contrast, much better than the non L zooms. Lens speed is fast to enable higher shutter speed, which is necessary for a non-IS telephoto lens. USM focus speed is very fast and it is relatively light to carry around in outdoor trips. Lens quality is as good and with no noticeable difference even with a 1.4X extender. This means that with a combined weight of less than 1kg you got both 200mm F2.8 and 280mm F4 lenses.
I really have no point to complain about, except that it is not a zoom and therefore not as versatile. If a 200mm prime is what you are looking for, you will not be regret having this lens.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2004
|
|
Lars Johnsson
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 32099
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
165
|
301952
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
95% of reviewers
|
$608.24
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.79
|
9.72
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
