about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
166 326999 Oct 28, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $610.49
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.77
9.70
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
          
mirages
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Apr 3, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 299
Review Date: Jun 26, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Lightning fast autofocus; faster and more accurate than any other L prime I tested.
Cons:
We all love IS (it doesn't have it).

Well, this is one FINE lens. I have to admit that I was a bit apprehensive of ordering this, but I am sure glad I did now!

Light enough with good balance with a battery pack to hand hold steady. The autofocus is blazingly fast, and by all appearance in my first month or so with it, the focus is spot on as well.

I know its been said before about other Canon lenses; especially certain L's, but this piece of pipe is well worth the cost. Anyone who is hesitating because of no IS, don't any more. I have to believe as well from everything I have read and heard that this is one of the most consitstent QA L lenses Canon makes.

I have some other L lenses to rate that I have recently and not so recently acquired, but felt compelled to comment on this one a bit out of order. Also, I am not yet fully in tune with my 70-200 IS and a WA prime, so those will have to wait their turn.

If you have been on the fence, even if you have a zoom; the mobility and dexterity of this lens is well worth the relatively modest L entry fee. A lifetime keeper, for sure!


Jun 26, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mirages to your Buddy List  
Ray Paterson
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 14, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Review Date: Jun 19, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: colour, contrast, bokeh f2.8 razor sharp, build quality,price.
Cons:
none

this lens is the best lens I have in my bag. Any lenses retired out of bag for other lenses that may seem more attrractive at the time will not include this one,it's a gem and a real keeper.

Jun 19, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Ray Paterson to your Buddy List  
jcmedeiros
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jun 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 760
Review Date: Jun 17, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Light, sharp, great color
Cons:
None

This lens in the kid brother of the fabled EF 135 f/2L. It's light and razor sharp with great colors. I don't know what there is to complain about with this lens. You can't go wrong buying this one.

Jun 17, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jcmedeiros to your Buddy List  
Thomaspin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 65
Review Date: Jun 9, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $675.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Optics, build.
Cons:
Detachable lens hood.
Jun 9, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Thomaspin to your Buddy List  
rossmehan
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, great focusing, good contrast, inexpensive, light, compact
Cons:
None significant

Bought mine used, but no regrets--nice glass. I'd heard a lot of good things about it, but it exceeded my expectations. I use a lot of zoom lenses and going to a fixed focal shows the excellent quality of prime glass. Granted this lens is a little long for portraits, but for my event work fills a nice niche--

Hands down a great lens---


Jun 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rossmehan to your Buddy List  
odo benus
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 30, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 67
Review Date: May 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Good resolution; illumination falloff and overall performance already acceptable at full aperture.
Cons:
Some lateral color; suboptimal contrast.

The lens is sharp enough and there is little to complain. Still I must subtract one point for the small amount of residual lateral color and one point for the moderate contrast.

May 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add odo benus to your Buddy List  
timmyb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 12, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Review Date: May 7, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Colour,contrast,sharpness from 2.8 upwards,build quality,lightweight and black,accurate fast focussing,takes a TC well.The built in hood of the mark I is an advantage for me.
Cons:
Not really a negative but IS would be nice.

I posted a review for the 100 f/2 a few months ago and rated it a 10 but it's not up to the standards of the 200 2.8.I guess it's all relative.This lens now forms the benchmark and I doubt anything I can afford will ever surpass it.If I could rate it 11 I would.

May 7, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add timmyb to your Buddy List  
snowboard9
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 30, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $630.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, Fast AF and surprisingly compact. Comes with a hood
Cons:
Really disappointed that it does not come with a tripod/monopod ring. It's an optional $80 or so bucks.

I bought this len instead of the 70-200L IS for two reason - (1) I almost always go on the long end in this range and (2) the price and compactness is much much better than the 70-200L IS.

The one thing I was concerned about was the lack of IS. Well, it turns out I never needed it for my shooting style and I am surprised just how well a monopod works to stabilize. This is one of my favorite portrait and sports lens. I have taken great portraits, razor sharpand handheld.

I am surprised so many here purchased this lens under $500. Great buy. if you are considering the 70-200mm L IS, I guess the only advice is to really look at whether you need that zoom range and you really go long from the get go. That's an $800 decision but clearly the IS is a nice to have.


Apr 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add snowboard9 to your Buddy List  
Lani Kai
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 782
Review Date: Apr 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, light, inexpensive, great colors, inconspicuous
Cons:
Built-in hood a little too shallow (MkI)

This was my first L lens. In the three months following my purchase of this lens, I bought the 70-200mm f/4L and then 300mm f/4L IS... I think I've caught the L fever but I don't have any problem with that... Though my wallet does. In the end I decided to keep the 70-200mm f/4L and sell this because I don't really need the f/2.8 and the loss of IQ wasn't too bad. And I don't have anything else that covers between my 50mm macro and 200mm. Anyway, this is not to say this is a bad lens because it is a fantastic lens. A great value, too. Very sharp with excellent colors, and very portable. My copy was a UH--made in 1993--but it was as smooth as a new lens.

Apr 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Lani Kai to your Buddy List  
Cristian DM
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 3, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: VERY SHARP, great build, great feel, smooth focus ring, light and discrete compared to white L tele-zooms, extra fast AF, very good with Teleconverters, heavenly bokeh.
Cons:
Less flexibility than a 70-200 F2.8 zoom.

This is an amazing lens.

Image quality is no short of exceptional. This is a lens you don't need to stop down to increase sharpness.
Color and contrast are as good as it gets.

Build quality is excellent, but note that the lens is not weather sealed.

If you need a fast telephoto for poorly lit sports, this is the one for you. It only lacks the flexibility of the zooms, but if you need this focal lenght, it really can't be beat (with the exception of the discontinued 200mm F1.8L of course).

It gives VERY good results with both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.
On a 1.6x crop body it acts like a 320mm F2.8... a bargain if you can find it used!

I definitely recommend this lens.


Apr 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Cristian DM to your Buddy List  
CameraGeorge
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 82
Review Date: Mar 31, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Fast Focusing, Great colour and 'feel' to images!
Cons:
None!

This is my first 'L' lens and I am very impressed with the quality, both physically and in the images it produces. It focuses a lot faster than my cheaper lenses, and feels about the right weight. The bokeh is smooth, and I am pleased with the high percentage of great photos straight from the camera.

It isn't a cheap lens, but when used on a 1.6x crop body, like the 350d it becomes a f/2.8 320mm - great value for money!
The only problem with buying it is that you will want to get more and more L series f/2.8 lenses!


Mar 31, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add CameraGeorge to your Buddy List  
Bobbo Clark
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 332
Review Date: Mar 30, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, good color and contrast, well-built, fast focusing, lightweight for a 200mm/2.8, built-in hood is either a godsend or a PITA, black color doesn't attract attention like the white lenses
Cons:
None, except maybe the lens hood, but I haven't had a problem with it.

I am reviewing the Mk.I variant. This is optically identical to the newer Mk.II. The only difference between late Mk.I copies and the Mk.II is the Mk.I has a built-in hood which is smaller (good for portability, some-what bad for flare protection). Some people like it, some people don't. Call me crazy, but I'm apathetic.

I shoot for newspapers. I don't make huge enlargements, and I don't "pixel-peep", so when it comes to absolute sharpness and photos of brick walls, I'm not the best person to ask whether the 135/2 or this lens has better resolution by 1 or 2 l/mm. Photography is where I get my income, and I don't have the time or the money to waste on testing 4 copies of a lens like some people on this forum.

I bought this lens for a special hockey game (it was the last regular season game in my college's 40-year-old rink against their archrival, so it was kinda important). I kept getting lots of out of focus shots, but I luckily found the focus limiter early in the game, and that made the AF almost perfect.

This is the best EF-mount lens I have ever owned. It is leaps and bounds above the 100-300 zoom I had before.

The tripod collar is not needed, especially if you have a grip on your camera (either an add-on or built-in). I keep it because I think it looks naked without it. I will say this: The tripod collar makes handling on a monopod infinitly better. I will never own a telephoto under 135mm ever again if it doesn't have one available.

Will I keep this lens? No. I need the flexibility of a zoom, and the quality of the Sigma and Canon 70-200/2.8 lenses are almost as good. I will look at Canon L lenses from now on, and I will probably never buy a lens for a DSLR that isn't one ever again (unless my 50/1.8 II dies...great lens that's lasted me 4 years of hard wedding and P/J work and has yet to let me down).


Mar 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Bobbo Clark to your Buddy List  
Jesper
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 9, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 817
Review Date: Mar 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Extremely sharp wide open, good colours and contrast. Fast AF. Good build quality. Relatively light and small. Black, so it's not as conspicuous as other L tele lenses. Good price for such a great lens.
Cons:
It would have been even better with IS. No rubber weather sealing ring.

I wanted an L tele lens and considered the following options:

70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM - Great lens, but very big, heavy and expensive.
70-200 f/4 L USM - Also very good, but f/4 and no IS. I wanted at least f/2.8 or IS.
300 f/4 L IS USM - Ofcourse also very good, but big and heavy.

So I chose 200 f/2.8 L II USM because it's f/2.8, it's relatively light and small (only half the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS) and it's not too expensive (about the same price as the 70-200 f/4 L). I also got a Canon EF 1.4x extender with it, which makes it a very good 280mm f/4.

Ofcourse IS would have made this lens even nicer.


Mar 20, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jesper to your Buddy List  
yanka
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Location: Latvia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: sharp, fast AF
Cons:
maybe no IS

http://www.pbase.com/janisjrj/test_ef200_28l

I look narrowly at anothers prime L lenses


Mar 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add yanka to your Buddy List  
mal233
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Aug 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 398
Review Date: Mar 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $560.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: very sharp, very fast.
Cons:

A dream to hold and shoot with. Oh, and did I say very sharp, yes!! It differs from the original by only the change in the retractable hood, which I like. Purchased refurbished from B&H. If you can find one like this and like primes you will be extremely pleased especially with a 1.6 mag factor on a digital body - how about a 320mm/2.8 lens for under $650!!!

Mar 13, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add mal233 to your Buddy List  
udoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 220
Review Date: Feb 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very sharp wide open, beautiful colors, very nice bokeh, price
Cons:
no IS

This is the sharpest lens I own. The best part of this lens is it is very sharp even wide open at F2.8. This is my first L lens and I can understand why most of the folks love the pro series. The colors out of this lens are really nice and saturated(looks more natural then when you boost it in PS). The bokeh created is simply breath taking. I have to get used to this as and stop down a bit as sometimes the DEF is too shalow.

It does feel heavy on my 10D. With the multiplier factor of 1.6x. The 200 gets converted to 320mm which is really long especially when shooting without a tripod and your subject keeps moving. I wish this lens had an IS on it. I think that is my only complain. But for this price I should'nt be complaining.


Feb 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add udoo to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
166 326999 Oct 28, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $610.49
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.77
9.70
9.8
1ef200mmf_28_1_1_


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