Pixel Perfect wrote:
I doubt the extra elements account for a 1/3 stop lower light transmission than the f/1.8 version. With 5 extra elements and using a worst case coating that loses 1% light at each extra interface and assuming there are 11 interfaces you can show the effective aperture of the f/2 lens is at worst ~ 2.066, so more like a tenth of a stop.
Now I understand why my 500 f/4.5 feels quite a bit faster than the 500 f/4 I had. It is all those extra lens elements that they choked the 500 f/4 with (17 vs. 8).
PetKal wrote:
Now I understand why my 500 f/4.5 feels quite a bit faster than the 500 f/4 I had. It is all those extra lens elements that they choked the 500 f/4 with (17 vs. 8).
DoubleNegative wrote:
I'd just like to add that if your f/2 breaks, it's under warranty. If your f/1.8 breaks, you're SOL.
Erm, no, wrong actually. CPS in the UK for example have told me they can (except for a few parts) service this lens, and there have been people on FM who have had their 1.8 serviced independently. I have yet to read of a single 1.8 that is now sitting unused due to lack of repair. Servicing may not be straightforward, but your assertion of being 'SOL' is not correct.
DoubleNegative wrote:
I'd just like to add that if your f/2 breaks, it's under warranty. If your f/1.8 breaks, you're SOL.
Not necessarily. A couple of points. 1) Just because Canon no longer repairs it doesn't mean that it can't be repaired. I recently had the mount replaced on mine as well as the having it completely cleaned and adjusted by a local independent repair center. Any parts he needed came from a 300 2.8. My repair guy told me that there is not much on that lens that he can't repair with parts from other lenses.. 2) When was the last time you had a lens repaired? In 30+ years of photography I have had a total of 2. My 28-70 my 200 1.8. That's it. Both of them were repaired because of wear not because of any kind of failure. Too many people are too worried about things that rarely happen.
I understand Fixations, a popular service/repair specialist in Vauxhall, London, will service and repair the f1.8, spare parts allowing.
Those people skeptical about the different levels of light transmission in different lens designs should go and test shutter speeds with some of their lenses at equivalent apertures.
The new 200 has IS. IS designs have an element which moves, and therefore needs to be small. That, combined with the extra elements of different kinds, and the new restrictions on what you can make glass from, could well explain the observed light reduction. It's a new design. What's so incredible about this?
brainiac wrote:
This image definitely shows the pop that I would expect from my 1.8. Very encouraging.
As I said, most of us have not shown real world shots yet, so far I am very impressed with this lens. More importantly the 5 stop IS is just awesome as shown by samples below
.....and finally no test cannot go without a dog shot
Handheld with very dim lights, I haven't played with the lighting but just taken to show how well the IS works. This one taken hand held 1/20 sec and I can hear the double click of shutter and thats how slow the shutter speed was. http://www.thepatienteye.com/albums/webforum/200portrait10.jpg
A bit of a positive development: the 200 f/2 IS price seems to be on a downslide. The KEH have it now at $5,400 and Beach Camera even lower somewhat. Give it another year or so and the price might stabilize around $4.5k.
One of the most popular uses for the old 200 f1.8 was by photojournalists for sports at night. Neither the IS nor the lighter weight resulting in supposed handholdability is going to help in this situation, but the wider aperture of the older model will.
The new 200mm f2.0's closer focusing distance is significant at 1.9 vs 2.5 meters.
What type of shooting will take best advantage of the different features of the new 200 compared to the older model?
BuLLets wrote:
My 200 showed up today. Hmm.. now I need to find a cat!
Oh no. Why a cat ? Besides, in a half-decent light my 180L could probably turn out a sharper portrait of your cat than the 200 f/2.
Why not take it to the beach and try to get some inflight shots of skimmers or other terns ? That would be a more worthy target for the $5.5k lens.
Why a cat ? Besides, in a half-decent light my 180L could probably turn out a sharper portrait of your cat than the 200 f/2.