 |
|
|
ManofMustard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 4, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 7, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Autofocus speed, tack sharp, weight, great colors and bokeh, price, well built
|
|
Cons:
|
no built in lens hood or IS
|
|
|
I am renting this lens for the Seattle Seafair airshow weekend.
I shot over 750 pictures of the airshow practice on Friday. I have fallen in love with this lens. Last year I shot the airshow with a Tamron 200-500 and found I had to pre-focus just to get decent pictures. No more prefocusing baby! My hit rate on the focus was much higher than I was expecting. This lens makes my pictures from last year look like crap. I am truly awe struck on how sharp & contrasty the pictures turned out.
If I didn't need a wide angle lens next I would certainly pick one of these babies up. Anyone want to buy a Tamron 200-500?
|
|
 Aug 7, 2010
|
|
LPrimeFreak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack sharp, great bokeh/colours/contrast right out of the lens, superfast AF, more compact than 70-200, built in lenshood (version I), great built quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
no IS, fixed focal.
|
|
The best price/quality & most underrated Canon L!
I have the version I with built in hood, it's almost perfect!
It's produced in the age when IS did not exist, but version II also doesn't have IS, this isn't much a problem cause it's relative compact and stable to handhold.
This was my first L, thanks to this lens I got addicted to sharp primes with low f-values (maximum f2.8).
As I was so amazed by the 200L (and 135L) that I had a problem with the 1.6 cropfactor,they were meant for fullframe.
Therefore I bought a fullframe, especially to get the maximum out of both "beast-L's".
I sold my 17-55 f2.8 IS, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 150. Great rangers, but I hardly used the last 3 Sigma's and left Sigma definitely. I'd rather have image quality than a lot of mm's with less quality.
I used the 200 2.8L for tele/basketball pictures on my 40D & 5D2. So much detail, you can see the sweat on the players foreheads sharp from far away with amazing bokeh of the audience behind!
These pictures can be published immediately in a magazine, without any PS corrections or whatever needed!
It's hard to believe, but this red ring changed my whole photography, crop to fullframe and all L's now :-)
This is the compact Canon black lens with longest mm's, the 300 2.8 is white, I don't like long white lenses practically 
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010
|
|
hatch1921
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4312
|
|
Review Date: Jul 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Not heavy, super fast focus, great color/contrast and the bokeh is very pleasing.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Almost the same results as the 135L. Blazing fast focus...bokeh looks great! Super sharp wide open! Sold the 70-200L IS F/2.8 for this lens... no regrets! Sharper than my 70-200 wide open... very nice lens. Best of all it doesn't fell like a tank in my hands.
Well worth the money IMO. Another great prime!
Hatch
|
|
|
Jul 1, 2010
|
|
LeoJan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Optics are top, sharp, color, no CA. Nice bokeh, you can compare this lens with the 135L. Takes the 1.4 extender with very little loss, múch better then the 70-200 zooms.
|
|
Cons:
|
IS would be nice, but the alternative , the EF 200L F2.0 IS cost somewhat more :) and does not have the nice low profile.
|
|
|
Overall a very nice prime, with a lot of value for your money. Not a prime you use all the time, like a 50 or 35 mm, but I use it more then I thought I would. This prime has a lot of competition of the range of 70-200 L zooms from Canon itself, which are already are very good. Biggest reason to buy this lens secondhand was the size, weight, the nice black color. You can walk around town with this lens, I do not try that with my 70-200 L F2.8 IS. Cheap for the quality you get.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2010
|
|
Ektar25
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 22, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 593
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $625.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome sharpness
Fantastic bokeh
Compact & light compared to other telephoto lenses
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Read a lot of great comments about this lens before buying it. All of them are true. No micro-adjustment was necessary with my 5dII, the lens was sharp as a razor right out of the box. I have other L lenses, but so far this one is the sharpest of the bunch.
|
|
|
May 12, 2010
|
|
robert s
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $980.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light & Compact
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
Excellent sharpness wide open, which improves slightly at f4.
Creamy bokeh. Great for head shots.
Also works well with extension tubes for close-up
see example:
http://www.zealscape.com/photo4544064.html
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2010
|
|
Trevor Sowers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 14, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Apr 14, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built. Fast accurate AF. Very sharp at all apertures. Well balanced and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
not weather sealed.
|
|
|
Wow!
I shoot wide open 80% of the time. If I stop down it is to get greater depth of field not better IQ.
I would buy this lens again in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010
|
|
mahonet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, easily portable high quality lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
Actually nothing!
|
|
|
I bought my lens for under 600 €. I came back to this excellent lens after using some years 70-200 f4 zooms (IS and non IS), because I need a fast and light 200mm tele with ef 300 f2.8 L IS -lens with the same picture quality. And indeed, the quality can be compared with ef 300mm 2.8 L IS! One of the best and cheapest lens in Canon L-lens line up.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2010
|
|
dnauer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight and build quality for a 200mm is great. Great sharpness, contrast, and the focus is lightening fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
I do have trouble getting the lens hood on this lens sometimes, but that is about all I can complain about -- it is the MkII version so has a removable lens hood.
|
|
|
My first "L", I had borrowed a 70-300 and used it a month and found almost all my shots were around 200mm, and I really didn't like the results with the 70-300 -- it just didn't "feel" right -- so took the leap and tried the "L" prime. I shoot with a 40d. Now I'm hooked. I'm an amateur that is regarded in my local circle of friends, and have had good equipment a long time (my first camera I bought in the mid-70s was an used Canon F-1 with FD 50mm f1.4 -- but I've never been much of a buyer of lenses). My first full day out with this lens resulted in several pictures that rank among my favorites ever -- I am amazed at the capabilities of this lens. I'm reluctant to post on a list like this with true professionals that really are expert, but I can't help it -- it is the best purchase I've made since that used F-1! I think having confidence in your equipment does help with the quality of the work, and I've been trying a lot of things with this lens since I'm motivated to learn how to use it's capabilities -- and I'm not disappointed so far!
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2010
|
|
Jay Adeff
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 328
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build quality. Very sharp at f/2.8. Fast AF. Small, light, and affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is Canon's sleeper L lens. It is 99% as sharp as the 300 2.8L IS. I bought it to replace the 70-200 2.8L which was a huge dissapointment to me. The 200 prime is fantastically sharp at f/2.8. The AF is fast, silent, and accurate. One of my favorite lenses of all time.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2010
|
|
Phrantic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, fast, cheap, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lacks the flexibility of a zoom, but you know that when you buy it.
|
|
|
For me, this is the ultimate lens. I came from a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 which I found too heavy to carry around. This lens is much smaller, lighter, cheaper, and it's coloured black. Its performance is also slightly better, resulting in sharper images wide open. However, don't buy this lens over the 70-200 just for the image quality, because both are superb and there's not much to tell between them.
If you're looking to pick up this lens second-hand, see if you can find a good copy of the discontinued mk1 version. This one's optically similar to the mk2 but has a built-in lens hood. For me this is ideal, because the lens hood is stronger and smaller than the bulky hood that comes with the mk2. Also, you can't lose it. What surprised me is that I could attach 77mm filters to the hood (though rendering the hood useless) but also my 77mm lens caps - handy if you like. I have a tripod ring for the 70-200mm F4 which also fits this lens like a glove.
I have also used the 70-200mm F4 and the F4 IS as well as the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 and ultimately found that I only use the long end of the zoom. So for me it only made sense that I'd go for a prime. And I got it CHEAP.
|
|
|
Dec 1, 2009
|
|
eWILDz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Location: India
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Non-IS ??
|
|
|
Probably the cheapest (and the best) L glass that will perform as 300/2.8 on any crop DSLR !
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2009
|
|
ajt36
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 442
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $709.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, build, weight, most inexpensive L glass
|
|
Cons:
|
Limited use focal length, no tripod collar included, cheaply constructed lens hood - all minor stuff
|
|
I've been using this lens for about a month and I think it must be a marketing ploy by Canon to get people sucked into "L" glass. It is the most inexpensive way into L glass, but not an often used focal length (for most people). Still, I'm sucked in! The image quality is first rate... quite unbelievable compared to my 28-135mm and my 50mm/1.8 II (and I like both of these lenses very much). I do very little color adjusting in post with this lens. It is super sharp... for me, even at f/2.8... and the bokeh... just other worldly!!! So, I'm hooked... next on the list is a 135mm/2, which is probably my favorite focal length, but for right now, just a bit much for me to swallow price-wise... so I'll just be taking several steps back with the 200mm/2.8 on my 30D!
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2009
|
|
rndman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $695.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
1.Sharpest even wide open
2. Light weight
3. Black
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
After looking at all the reviews, I could not resist myself to add this to my gear. I bought it new. This is one beautiful lens. Solidly built. Very sharp even wide open. Just did a test run for this. Very highly recommendedYou can see the images below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman/sets/72157622385563687/
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2009
|
|
recordproducti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 176
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent lens with superb sharpness, lightness and almost unobtrusiveness.
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the money.
|
|
|
I bought a used mark one version with the built in hood. Brilliant! It's even more discrete than the mkII version with big hood.
After several weeks worth of intensive shooting with it I'm sold. Much lighter to lug around than the 70-200's and I much prefer the bokeh to the f/4 70-200's. It's kind of hard to think of any subjective downsides to this lens, as many other owners have said, it's one of the sleepers in the L range. It's also very affordable and almost addictive, it's on my 5DmkII much more than I expected.
I find this a perfect partner to my 85L (mkII). My 85L is sharper (it's sharper than any 135L's I've tried too so I must have a really good one) and the 85L is more 3D but in a different way. The 200 f/2.8 has a natural look, it's warm and a little less contrasty than the 85L but that's not to say it's not contrasty. I think that the mkII version may have more contrast due to the longer hood but in any case, I absolutely adore the quality of images I'm capturing and the ability to walk around all day and not feel exhausted carrying the zoom.
This is a sadly overlooked and brilliant value lens but I suspect it will be discovered by the masses soon and become one of the hot lenses to own, for good reason.
|
|
|
Aug 8, 2009
|
|
sunpole
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 314
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp, solid build L quality, very fast, Light weight and its black!
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is the sharpest lens that I own, even sharper than 70-200/4L IS at 200mm. The background blur is very desirable @ 200mm 2.8. Solid build and lightweight, very reasonablly priced.
Super super sharp image even wide open.
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
164
|
301669
|
Dec 23, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
95% of reviewers
|
$608.24
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.79
|
9.72
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
