 |
|
|
RobDose
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 5, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 16, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp, Excellent colour. A wonderful focal length for portraiture. Build quality and lightness is amazing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing.
|
|
|
If you are going to be shooting a lot at 200mm and dont have the money for an ef 200mm f/2.0L then stop worrying and go out and buy this lens. Forget the zoom lenses, they have nothing on this.
I took a lot of enjoyment in proving the superiority of this lens against all of my associates 70-200mm varieties.
|
|
 Jun 16, 2009
|
|
zolbs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2009
Location: China
Posts: 19
|
|
Review Date: Jun 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, solid build, stellar images, and doesn't draw attention like the white zooms.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS
|
|
|
I travel a lot and was looking for a longer lens that would enable me to shoot some really crisp candids of people - from across the street, down the block etc.
I was going back and forth between this and a 70-200L that would obviously give me more range. But I was worried about lugging around a 70-200 2.8 for hours on end ... And I really did want some the extra stop from the F4.
Anyway, I am thrilled with this lens. I definitely made the right choice. It's light. And given that it's black - I don't draw too much attention to myself.
Most importantly, the shots are mind-blowingly crisp. I'm relatively new to L series lenses, but I am floored by some of the shots. The IQ is unreal.
Some may be put off by the set focal length. But it doesn't bother me. I really enjoy being able to focus on shooting tight for a bit.. Then swap to a 17-40 for wider street scenes.
Anyway, this lens fits my aim.. Love it.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2009
|
|
fteter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $620.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build - Image Quality - Fast AF - Great for hand-held shots
|
|
Cons:
|
Have yet to discover any
|
|
|
I bought this lens used because I wanted a moderately fast lens with some reach. Didn't really think I'd use it all that much, but I want wrong - I got more lens than I bargained for! I've found it to be my best lens for long-distance candid shots.
Three things about this lens have really knocked my socks off:
1) The sharpness and the colors of the images from this lens on my 5D are outstanding.
2) It's light enough for sharp hand-held shots at slower shutter speeds.
3) The AF is very, very fast.
I should point out that this lens also takes a 1.4 TC very well - no noticeable loss of image quality. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
May 30, 2009
|
|
Grenache
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1585
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
profound sharpness (even wide open), fast focusing, takes to extension tubes and 1.4x extender quite well; light weight
|
|
Cons:
|
hood threading is lousy...too much effort to screw on correctly; no longer comes with the tripod collar at same price
|
|
|
Overall, this is a fantastic lens suited for many purposes. If you have ample space, it makes for flattering head/torso shots, it is a good FL for flower portraits or - when coupled with a 1.4x extender or extension tubes - is a capable close-up lens choice.
Tight accent landscapes are similarly harvested well with this gem.
It is FAR lighter and sharper than the f/2.8L 70-200 flavors...so light that I routinely get sharp photos handheld at 1/60sec exposures.
Color rendering is well balanced, and the bokeh is gorgeous.
A couple years ago, this lens was packaged with its tripod collar. That made this excellent value even better.
Only gripe is that the hood is a relatively poor thread fit to the lens. This being the only thing that I can find to complain about tells something of the quality of the lens itself.
|
|
|
May 25, 2009
|
|
rami.halim
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 149
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great sharpness,contrast and color ... small,light,black, inexpensive relative to their zoom counterpart
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
VERY sharp and contrasty wide open and insanely sharp stopped down .. accepts photoshop sharpning very well ..
its a great bargain .. if you buy it from amazon don't go for the canon 72mm haze filter.. its terrible .. go for the B&W
works nicely with the canon 1.4 extender ..
sample pictures here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28943478@N08/sets/72157615760445704/
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2009
|
|
Badmono
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 10, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp - lightweight for a 200 f2.8 - It's BLACK - Cheap for a lens of this quality Great with a 1.4x convertor - Real bargain - Just buy one you'll love it:-))
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor following from Canon users which is a shame - everyone uses a poxy 70-200 zoom instead:-((
|
|
|
A cracking buy - One of Canons best lenses, almost as sick as the 135 F2 'L' for image quality, images jump out the screen at you. For Birds and wildlife WOW the lens really does 'em justice, even with a convertor fitted the lens excells itself. Makes all the 70-200 zooms obsolete IMO. Just buy one with a 135 F2, and a 85 F1.8 and you have real flexibity. The 3 Black lenses cost about the same as the silly White Huge 70-200 IS but for IQ, Bokeh, and contrast make the zoom look distinctly 3rd rate. of course if you're a wedding photographer, you'll still want the zoom for it's standard soft focus. Though you could achieve the same effect with a filter smeared with vaseline fitted on the 200 F2.8:-))
Just buy one you won't regret it
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009
|
|
Hans im Glueck
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, nice colors, rich details
|
|
Cons:
|
A lot: no IS, not a Zoom,not 80mm, not 1:1.2, not small as my thumb.
Come on: You knew that, when You bought it.
|
|
|
Its a very nice lens. A bargain for an Canon L. Pictures are sharp from wide open. Not agressive sharp but very rich of details even in the shadows. Colours are neutral with little tendency to warmth. bokeh is nice but not dreamy ( like 85L ).
The look of pictures is very balanced.
I can really recommend it.
Mark
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2009
|
|
michael49
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4996
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Silly sharp, incredible colors and contrast, its black.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
I've got the version I with the built in hood, which I love. It was made in '95 and it looks like its brand new!!
This is the first lens I've used that really blew me away and I've used many Canon primes and L's. The bokeh, colors, contrast and sharpness are simply amazing, even wide open. This lens is simply incredible. I'm now dreaming of the 135L.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2009
|
|
bassie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 206
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light, not so "look at meeeeee white", great bokeh and did I mention sharp!?
|
|
Cons:
|
uhmmmm........
|
|
|
I bought this lens last december and used i on my last trip to Luxor, Egypt. This lens was 90% of the time on my 5d. Great for candids.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2009
|
|
Chococat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 171
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything--meaning I have nothing bad to say about it, I guess.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nope.
|
|
|
I find this to be a functional, sharp lens, that always delivers fine results and handles very well. I am aware that there is a 200 1.8 that is supposed to be even sharper, and in fact is considered among the very sharpest 35mm lenses in existence, but honestly no normal mortal needs a lens that is any sharper than the 2.8. And considering what some of the other L series lenses cost, it's a bargain.
I don't do much telephoto work, so at first I was skeptical--a salesman was pushing it, he seemed convinced I would like it. But he is salesman I trust, so I bought it, and in fact now I keep trying to invent more and more reasons to use it, just because I like the results.
Also, I have gotten good results with the 1.4 extender. I have to be deliberate, but if I used the extender with care, mounted on a tripod, with a timer or remote, test it out the scene to determine the best possible aperture, etc., I can get pictures that show no noticable degradation. So if you get the extender as well, and are very careful in using it, it is like getting a first class 280mm prime in addition.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009
|
|
Mike Liquorish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp,size and weight,great bokeh,price,build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I can find
|
|
|
One of the sharpest lenses I have used , very sharp even wide open at f2.8, Lovely bokeh. I personally prefer this to the 70-200 IS I tend to shoot at the long end and did not need the weight and bulk, plus the size of the 200 I find I don`t need IS. Almost as sharp as the 135L f2 - which I am in the process of getting. By the way did I say this is sharp! Have had great results using for landscape work and as a walk around for candids- great when you want a bit of distance so you are not encroaching on your subject- also had great results using indoors. I use it with a 5D with a vertical/ battery grip and I find it to be nicely balanced.I could not recommend this lens more highly, if you do not need a zoom then I don`t think you could buy a better lens in this focal length plus it is also well priced for a L lens.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2009
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14720
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, fast, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
None I knew the lesn didn't have IS when I bought it so how can one say this is a con? If it did have IS triple the cost
|
|
|
Excellent lens and for the money you can't beat it period. Some of the best bokeh, love it for shooting sports or hummers
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2008
|
|
zeytee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 116
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $830.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable, lightweight, small in size, sharp image
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS, no weather seal
|
|
I've just downgraded from EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM to EF70-200mm F/4L IS USM due to the size and weight of the former lens. But this move means I have to sacrifice a stop of speed and bokeh. Since I also own EF135mm F/2L USM and like the image quality so much so I gave EF200mm F/2.8L II USM a try. Though it might not be as sharp as its sibling, but the image quality is rated considerably very high, and definitely won EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM.
I like the lens because it's black in colour, less attractive to the surrounding people. When lens hood is not in used, it looks just like another fast standard zoom lens. If you often shoot at 200mm on a 70-200mm, this could be your alternative. Priced slightly more expensive than the EF70-200mm F/4L USM, and almost half of the EF70-200mm F/2.8L USM, I think it's a great value lens.
More write-ups about this lens at my site:
http://zeytee.blogspot.com/2008/11/ef200mm-f28l-ii-usm.html
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2008
|
|
philber
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 20, 2008
Location: France
Posts: 6420
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic value for money, good build, light weight relative to build quality and focal length.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS, f2:8 max aperture
|
|
|
I already owned a 135L f:2.0 and a 1.4TC, giving me a FL of almost 200mm with a max F:2.8. So when my dealer suggested I try a 200mm f:2.8, I thought this was a strange idea. Actually, the 2 lenses have a very different character. The 135L acts almost like a magnifying glass, emphasizing each and every minute detail amost painfully, whether used alone or with the 1.4x converter.
By comparison, the 200mm is less "agressive". It is not less sharp, does not offer less detail, but it blends them smoothly into the overall photo.
Another way to put it is that the 200 gives me more keepers, as it is so easy and smooth, nothing looks "bad " with it.
The 135L give me less keepers, but those shots that are good are spectacular.
So if you are looking for a not-terribly-expensive, not-terribly-heavy telephoto, the 200mm f:2.8 is a terrific choice. It is an all-purpose lens with L quality IQ. Just, you have to remember, it does not have IS, so it is not like James Bond's Vodka Martini. Don't shake it...
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2008
|
|
BiPolarBear
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 20, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, solid build, fast AF, not white, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Would like to see this also offered as an IS version (i'd pay the extra).
|
|
|
I think this little gem probably gets overlooked by many. What a shame.
Having had it for a little over a year now, it's wide open IQ still makes me wonder how Canon put this lens together for the price it did. If i do my part right, it is brilliant.
Build is very nice, solid without being heavy. It's relatively compact, light enough to use all day without effort, and being black it makes a great lens for candids at events or on the street. AF is quick, silent and sure. It's a fun lens to use!
I will no doubt eventually get one of the 70-200's some day for the added flexibility, but with all the right things going on with this lens, and the way i shoot, i am in absolutely no hurry to go to the zoom.
I'd really like to see it offered in an IS version as well at about $1K... i'd buy it in a heartbeat (it would still be about $5K less than the f/2 version!).
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2008
|
|
polizonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent color and resolution, fast auto focus
|
|
Cons:
|
lens hood feels too tight
|
|
|
I love this lens for outdoor natural lighting photos with my 40D - very sharp, beautiful colors, and precise fast focus.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
164
|
301651
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
