PetKal wrote:
Christian, if indeed that was a production unit you had in your hands, then Canon may be in a position to start shipping within a couple of months.
Superior handling is a step in the right direction. Combine it with a superior performance and we should witness another legendary lens being born.
Yep, I just hope I have enough dough when it hits the shelves.
Shhhhh did you hear that... .that thud was the price of the 1.8 falling again.
cwphoto wrote:
MFD is 1.9m with the limiter at 3.5m.
Weight feels signifcantly less than the 200/1.8, say a little lighter than the 300/2.8 IS - but not much.
It comes in the same lens trunk as the 300/2.8 IS, and is quite a bit smaller than the 300/2.8 IS - certainly much smaller than the 200/1.8.
Which brings me to the biggest drawcard - the handling. The compact nature and the balance on the 1D Mark III is a huge improvement over the 200/1.8. The slight loss in lens-speed certainly is relayively painless (to me) when one considers how much the handling has improved with the 200/2 IS.
Speaking of IS, it feels a little improved over the other super-teles - but didn't 'feel' like it was 4-stops worth based on my brief test.
Price: I got the feeling it will be a little less than the 300/2.8 IS in the Aus market. Which puts it at about AUD8k RRP.
Availability has been pushed out to April here due to the Olympics, probably late March if you are Stateside.
PetKal wrote:
If you don't, your business will.
N. American introductory price $4,499.99 US, tapering down to $3,899.99 US within a year.
Sounds fair to me. Something tells me that Canon will want to make and sell a lot more than they ever did with the 200/1.8.
The whole form factor of the new 200/2 IS makes it more appealing for more people IMO - so all it needs now is a fair price and they'll probably sell more units in three years than they ever did of the 200/1.8.
SoundsGood wrote:
What do you guys think would be better (more versatile) on a 40D: the 200mm F/2 or the 135mm f/2 ?
I feel that the 70-200/2.8 IS is a bit unbalanced (front heavy) on my 40D and the 200/2 is much bigger than it. Thus I think the 135/2 will be much more at home with the 40D. Still planning to buy the 200/2? At least get a grip.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I feel that the 70-200/2.8 IS is a bit unbalanced (front heavy) on my 40D and the 200/2 is much bigger than it. Thus I think the 135/2 will be much more at home with the 40D.
I see. Thanks...
Yakim Peled wrote:
Still planning to buy the 200/2?
madmax200 wrote:
When it hits the streets the 200-1.8 will drop even more.
Perhaps so. However, there are a couple of factors to consider too: the new lens performance and price. For example, if the 200 f/2 price stays >$4k, there will still be a demand for the faster lens at $3k+.
Take a look at the 300 f.2.8 non-IS prices. Although the IS version is a better performing lens in every way, the same nominal aperture non-IS lens can still fetch $2.7-2.8k if in fine condition.
p.2 #10 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Great news about the new 200. Sounds like a lens to be very excited about.
On another note, I continue to be amused by how hard some of you work to: a) convince yourselves the 200/1.8 isn't all it's cracked up to be, and b) revel over the prospect of it's value dropping. If you're so sure the 200/1.8 isn't the lens for you (though the effort exerted in 'proving' so would suggest otherwise), why would you care so much about its value? The photographer doth protest too much, methinks.
p.2 #11 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Russ, you know we all secretly want the 200/1.8, are patiently waiting until the price drops, and vent our frustration over the $4k price tag by predicting the price of the 200/1.8 will drop
Thanks for the link and information. I may decide to wait for the 200/2 after all, if the handling is that much better. I have found with experience with my new-to-me 135/2L that even the added SS due to f/2 doesn't cover the 1/focal length rule in all cases, and I'm often shooting handheld at 1/60sec. I come out with sharp pics most of the time, but if general indoor night time lighting doesn't support SS above 1/60 sec (at ISO 1600 or 3200) then the added 1/3 stop of the 200/1.8 over the 200/2 isn't going to help. The IS will produce sharper pics because it will make up for my handholding the lens... I plan on using this in the context of weddings BTW, not so much on a monopod for sports. I would be far more comfortable shooting handheld 1/60 sec @ 200mm with IS than 1/80sec without.
But if the price drops on the 200/1.8 to like $3k then I'll probably snap one up anyway... or I'll just get a 300/2.8 IS and be done with it... ugh, I can't decide. At least if I get the 200/2 I can return it if I have more use for the 300/2.8, whereas I'd have to re-sell the 200/1.8. Just wish I could play with both lenses for a couple weeks side by side and decide that way.
p.2 #12 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Andrew: Keep in mind that the 200/2 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter gives you 280mm at f/2.8, plus IS, so in effect, that one lens gives you both the 200 and (almost) 300 range. I know some folks who sold their 300/2.8 because their 200/1.8 plus 1.4 gave them 280/2.5, which is close enough (and a touch faster). If the new 200 is as good as we all hope it will be, IQ with the 1.4x should be excellent (as it is with the 200/1.8 and 300/2.8 IS). So then the question becomes whether you're more likely to need the 200 and 280mm ranges, or 300 and 420mm (which you get with the 300 + 1.4, but at f/4).
p.2 #13 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Russ Isabella wrote:
Great news about the new 200. Sounds like a lens to be very excited about.
On another note, I continue to be amused by how hard some of you work to: a) convince yourselves the 200/1.8 isn't all it's cracked up to be, and b) revel over the prospect of it's value dropping. If you're so sure the 200/1.8 isn't the lens for you (though the effort exerted in 'proving' so would suggest otherwise), why would you care so much about its value? The photographer doth protest too much, methinks.
Never said it was not all its cracked up to be. Just that for the value it is not the one I would buy at the prices they were or even now are fetching. Several people on here have sold or trying to sell a 1.8 that they paid 4500 7 months ago for the low 3's now.
p.2 #14 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Russ Isabella wrote:
On another note, I continue to be amused by how hard some of you work to: a) convince yourselves the 200/1.8 isn't all it's cracked up to be, and b) revel over the prospect of it's value dropping.
The reason seems elementary, dear Isabella. Folks like Maxymad are possibly hoping to lay their hands on the "holy grail" lens dirt cheap.
Heck, I would not mind getting a backup for $1,287 or somethin.
p.2 #15 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Russ Isabella wrote:
Great news about the new 200. Sounds like a lens to be very excited about.
On another note, I continue to be amused by how hard some of you work to: a) convince yourselves the 200/1.8 isn't all it's cracked up to be, and b) revel over the prospect of it's value dropping. If you're so sure the 200/1.8 isn't the lens for you (though the effort exerted in 'proving' so would suggest otherwise), why would you care so much about its value? The photographer doth protest too much, methinks.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Never said it was not all its cracked up to be. Just that for the value it is not the one I would buy at the prices they were or even now are fetching. Several people on here have sold or trying to sell a 1.8 that they paid 4500 7 months ago for the low 3's now.
Okay, I had this big long discourse on why your post is inapporpriate / lacking. But I realized that you really don't care one bit, so I just deleted the entire thing save this:
For anything you show me, I can show you counter. And the reverse holds true as well. I have no illusions on this.
So please allow me to stoop and say, "Shhhhh did you hear that... he's still wrong."
And FM use to be such a nice forum... when did it become "dpreview#2".
And to contribute something positive,
Andrew, If I were you, I'd lean towards the 200/2IS; of course given that we don't even have pricing info yet; (at this point we've pulled the damn cart to town and left the horse at home).
With teleconverter's you've got really great options, and I'm going to assume that the 200/2IS is going to be very similar to the 200/1.8; in which case you can even get away with a doubler in a pinch (not my first choice, but it really isn't bad; plus, that's 400/4 (still autofocuses!))
p.2 #16 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Guys,
You will never get the image @ f/1.8 with 200/2 IS, it's just like 85/1.2L and 85/1.8, right ?
If you say who cares of the difference of the f/1.8 and f/2.0, ok, than why don't you get the 200/2.8L or just use the 700-200/2.8L IS which has the IS.....
Even the 200/2.0L IS will be a great lens for sure, but the 200/1.8L will never become PAPER weight....
p.2 #20 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
Actually, the way Canon announced the price was that the "estimated street price" is $5,999. So it may be quite a while before we see the lens available at $3,500.
