This topic is in the 2008 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2008EF 200 F2 Sample Images
p.2 #1EF 200 F2 Sample Images
PetKal wrote:
Some folks on this forum and DPR are attempting to compare the new lens to the 200 f/1.8 or 200 f/2 VR, based on a very few 200 f/2 IS test images posted so far, and without owning any of those lenses.
Yes, of course we are. I'm trying to weigh the new lens against the old, which I currently have an opportunity to buy. And the 1.8 is winning - which is a slight surprise since everyone was spouting on about how this lens was guaranteed to be a winner. All I've said is that so far, it seems good, but not ohmigodi'vegottahaveone good.
Some folks on this forum and DPR are attempting to compare the new lens to the 200 f/1.8 or 200 f/2 VR, based on a very few 200 f/2 IS test images posted so far, and without owning any of those lenses.
Yes, of course we are. I'm trying to weigh the new lens against the old, which I currently have an opportunity to buy. And the 1.8 is winning - which is a slight surprise since everyone was spouting on about how this lens was guaranteed to be a winner. All I've said is that so far, it seems good, but not ohmigodi'vegottahaveone good.
Jul 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM
p.2 #2EF 200 F2 Sample Images
I am with those that say the samples are less than the hype.
I own the 135 2.0 and 300 2.8 and am quite sure I could get similar results with them (at a fraction of the cost).
Why not show us what that lens will do that other lenses cannot
greg
I own the 135 2.0 and 300 2.8 and am quite sure I could get similar results with them (at a fraction of the cost).
Why not show us what that lens will do that other lenses cannot
greg
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM
p.2 #3EF 200 F2 Sample Images
Fluff, when you tested out that 300 2.8 was it at dusk? How about the shutter speeds, 1/30 - 1/60 of a second? In such low contrast shots at the shutter speeds I shot them at I don't think I'll be getting any jaw droppers just yet. I had about 3 mins with the lens before taking those pics. The sun was down, the only light I was getting was from the last few minutes after sunset before everything goes black. I don't think that's a combo that will produce the jaw droppers you're looking for. Perhaps when I can get some sports shots, wide open to isolate the subject in decent light I might be graced with a jaw dropper here or there. Actually under the circumstance I think the lens with IS did great.
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM
p.2 #4EF 200 F2 Sample Images
Indeed - the IS itself is stunning.
Thanks for posting the samples - I just don't get why others who have had the lens longer than you aren't posting some images that show us what else the lens can do.....
Thanks for posting the samples - I just don't get why others who have had the lens longer than you aren't posting some images that show us what else the lens can do.....
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM
p.2 #5EF 200 F2 Sample Images
greg, I'll get right on it for you! Give me a little time and I'll exploit the 200's abilities and get some other shots up. In the mean time my kids will have to do, as I have no sports or other indoor shoots in the near future to test the lens out on. I'd gladly take some other suggestions if you have any.
gheller wrote:
I am with those that say the samples are less than the hype.
I own the 135 2.0 and 300 2.8 and am quite sure I could get similar results with them (at a fraction of the cost).
Why not show us what that lens will do that other lenses cannot
greg
gheller wrote:
I am with those that say the samples are less than the hype.
I own the 135 2.0 and 300 2.8 and am quite sure I could get similar results with them (at a fraction of the cost).
Why not show us what that lens will do that other lenses cannot
greg
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM
p.2 #6EF 200 F2 Sample Images
PrecisionPhoto wrote:
I find the remarks about the pictures being inadequate annoying from the peanut galley members that don't even have the dam money for a point a shoot let a lone a 200 f/2
I owned three 200/1.8L and one Nikon 200/2.0 VR
I find the remarks about the pictures being inadequate annoying from the peanut galley members that don't even have the dam money for a point a shoot let a lone a 200 f/2
I owned three 200/1.8L and one Nikon 200/2.0 VR
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM
p.2 #7EF 200 F2 Sample Images
Three's just being greedy. No wonder they're hard to find....
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM
p.2 #8EF 200 F2 Sample Images
Lord Fluff wrote:
Yes, of course we are. I'm trying to weigh the new lens against the old, which I currently have an opportunity to buy. And the 1.8 is winning - which is a slight surprise since everyone was spouting on about how this lens was guaranteed to be a winner. All I've said is that so far, it seems good, but not ohmigodi'vegottahaveone good.
Fluff, that what people try to do all the time just can not be done with any degree of reliability IMO. Not only that these are very compressed sample images, we are also talking about different lens copies, different subjects/light, different photog's techniques in capturing and postprocessing.
Be that as it may, I wish you luck in chancing upon a good copy of the 200 f/1.8.
PetKal wrote
Some folks on this forum and DPR are attempting to compare the new lens to the 200 f/1.8 or 200 f/2 VR, based on a very few 200 f/2 IS test images posted so far, and without owning any of those lenses.Fluff, that what people try to do all the time just can not be done with any degree of reliability IMO. Not only that these are very compressed sample images, we are also talking about different lens copies, different subjects/light, different photog's techniques in capturing and postprocessing.
Be that as it may, I wish you luck in chancing upon a good copy of the 200 f/1.8.
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM
p.2 #9EF 200 F2 Sample Images
lidesun wrote:
I owned three 200/1.8L and one Nikon 200/2.0 VR
Oh goody, Lide.....that makes you "qualified", but not "infallible".
PrecisionPhoto wrote
I find the remarks about the pictures being inadequate annoying from the peanut galley members that don't even have the dam money for a point a shoot let a lone a 200 f/2 Oh goody, Lide.....that makes you "qualified", but not "infallible".
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:23 PM
p.2 #10EF 200 F2 Sample Images
PetKal wrote:
Be that as it may, I wish you luck in chancing upon a good copy of the 200 f/1.8.
Are there bad ones
Be that as it may, I wish you luck in chancing upon a good copy of the 200 f/1.8.
Are there bad ones
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:26 PM
p.2 #11EF 200 F2 Sample Images
PetKal wrote:
I owned three 200/1.8L and one Nikon 200/2.0 VR Oh goody, Lide.....that makes you "qualified", but not "infallible".
My comments that i am not impressed by the images produced from the 200/2.0L IS so far from what i saw here and the B&S forum, don't mean i don't respect the OP, and i never doubt the ability of the geratest lens. But i did say when the shooting conditions are right---subject, lighting, location etc...the great image will come.....
If you look at the B&S forum, the images posted from the 200/2.0 IS, i would think the lens was defect
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM
lidesun wrote
PrecisionPhoto wrote
I find the remarks about the pictures being inadequate annoying from the peanut galley members that don't even have the dam money for a point a shoot let a lone a 200 f/2 My comments that i am not impressed by the images produced from the 200/2.0L IS so far from what i saw here and the B&S forum, don't mean i don't respect the OP, and i never doubt the ability of the geratest lens. But i did say when the shooting conditions are right---subject, lighting, location etc...the great image will come.....
If you look at the B&S forum, the images posted from the 200/2.0 IS, i would think the lens was defect
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM
p.2 #12EF 200 F2 Sample Images
Lord Fluff wrote:
Are there bad ones
I don't know about "bad", however, recently I bought and returned a backfocusing lens in an excellent cosmetic condition. In fact, it's bad when a fast tele backfocuses a lot.
So, out of three lenses I tested one could be considered "bad", two were good.
I also believe The Digital Picture Com. had a perfectly preserved but soft copy. One of the FMers recently found his lens to have a focus error that he managed to compensate for by his MkIII microadjust.
PetKal wrote
Be that as it may, I wish you luck in chancing upon a good copy of the 200 f/1.8.I don't know about "bad", however, recently I bought and returned a backfocusing lens in an excellent cosmetic condition. In fact, it's bad when a fast tele backfocuses a lot.
So, out of three lenses I tested one could be considered "bad", two were good.
I also believe The Digital Picture Com. had a perfectly preserved but soft copy. One of the FMers recently found his lens to have a focus error that he managed to compensate for by his MkIII microadjust.
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
p.2 #13EF 200 F2 Sample Images
lidesun wrote:
If you look at the B&S forum, the images posted from the 200/2.0 IS, i would think the lens was defect
OK, I see now where you are coming from.
Could be the lens, could be the shot conditions, or both. I can't tell.
If you look at the B&S forum, the images posted from the 200/2.0 IS, i would think the lens was defect
OK, I see now where you are coming from.
Could be the lens, could be the shot conditions, or both. I can't tell.
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:49 PM
p.2 #14EF 200 F2 Sample Images
Lord Fluff wrote:
Indeed - the IS itself is stunning.
Thanks for posting the samples - I just don't get why others who have had the lens longer than you aren't posting some images that show us what else the lens can do.....
I'm taking mine to a rodeo tonight. I shot this rodeo last night with a 100-400 as a test and it didn't work out. So I'm going to be stressing this lens to its maximum tonight. I'll post examples probably on Monday (Pacific Standard Time that is for the Brits reading this).
I haven't seen the best this lens can do yet either. I think that it does have some advantages over the 1.8 version and that is the low shutterspeed you can achieve with it.
Indeed - the IS itself is stunning.
Thanks for posting the samples - I just don't get why others who have had the lens longer than you aren't posting some images that show us what else the lens can do.....
I'm taking mine to a rodeo tonight. I shot this rodeo last night with a 100-400 as a test and it didn't work out. So I'm going to be stressing this lens to its maximum tonight. I'll post examples probably on Monday (Pacific Standard Time that is for the Brits reading this).
I haven't seen the best this lens can do yet either. I think that it does have some advantages over the 1.8 version and that is the low shutterspeed you can achieve with it.
Jul 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM
p.2 #15EF 200 F2 Sample Images
Nothing against the OP since these were nothing more than quick snaps, but I agree that I haven't seen the great images with the lens yet. I do think the IS shows nicely here though.
With this said, I have no doubt they will come. With this said, I believe you can get great images from a P&S.
Getting back to the real intent of why everyone is interested in comparing it with the f/1.8 is to see if it stands up against it, and if it is worth the money. I am still not convinced of this. For me, IS has limited value on the lens. Please note I said for me. For me, the biggest advantage of either of these lenses is the shutter speed and ability to isolate the subject (knock out the background). If this is what you are trying for, the f/1.8 is better. It is also cheaper.
Regarding Lord Fluff's comments about are there bad 200 f/1.8L lenses, I was thinking as soon as he wrote it that the only one that I have read about has been PetKal's experience, so I thought it was funny to see it in this thread since I knew the answer that he would get back. With this said, it doesn't negate the fact that Canon doesn't support the lens anymore, and you need to go to select third party places to get support. To me, this is a real advantage of the 200 f/2L IS. The other advantages are the reduced size/weight. With this said, if I am going for one of these lenses, the size/weight are not the determining factor since they are both ridiculously large for a 200mm lens.
As a side note, I have found it funny that people are willing to pay an extra $5,000 since the extra stop is so important yet they quickly dismiss the 1/3 stop advantage between the f/2 and the f/1.8 lens. Apparently, this doesn't really mean anything.
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 01:21 PM
With this said, I have no doubt they will come. With this said, I believe you can get great images from a P&S.
Getting back to the real intent of why everyone is interested in comparing it with the f/1.8 is to see if it stands up against it, and if it is worth the money. I am still not convinced of this. For me, IS has limited value on the lens. Please note I said for me. For me, the biggest advantage of either of these lenses is the shutter speed and ability to isolate the subject (knock out the background). If this is what you are trying for, the f/1.8 is better. It is also cheaper.
Regarding Lord Fluff's comments about are there bad 200 f/1.8L lenses, I was thinking as soon as he wrote it that the only one that I have read about has been PetKal's experience, so I thought it was funny to see it in this thread since I knew the answer that he would get back. With this said, it doesn't negate the fact that Canon doesn't support the lens anymore, and you need to go to select third party places to get support. To me, this is a real advantage of the 200 f/2L IS. The other advantages are the reduced size/weight. With this said, if I am going for one of these lenses, the size/weight are not the determining factor since they are both ridiculously large for a 200mm lens.
As a side note, I have found it funny that people are willing to pay an extra $5,000 since the extra stop is so important yet they quickly dismiss the 1/3 stop advantage between the f/2 and the f/1.8 lens. Apparently, this doesn't really mean anything.
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Jul 18, 2008 at 01:13 PM
p.2 #16EF 200 F2 Sample Images
PetKal wrote:
I owned three 200/1.8L and one Nikon 200/2.0 VR Oh goody, Lide.....that makes you "qualified", but not "infallible".
The problem is the post like that someone posted is just so stupid and childish
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 02:27 PM
lidesun wrote
PrecisionPhoto wrote
I find the remarks about the pictures being inadequate annoying from the peanut galley members that don't even have the dam money for a point a shoot let a lone a 200 f/2 The problem is the post like that someone posted is just so stupid and childish
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 02:27 PM
Jul 18, 2008 at 02:26 PM
p.2 #17EF 200 F2 Sample Images
gheller wrote:
I am with those that say the samples are less than the hype.
I own the 135 2.0 and 300 2.8 and am quite sure I could get similar results with them (at a fraction of the cost).
Why not show us what that lens will do that other lenses cannot
The 135 would be framed too loose, and the 300 would be framed too tight.
Next?
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 02:36 PM
I am with those that say the samples are less than the hype.
I own the 135 2.0 and 300 2.8 and am quite sure I could get similar results with them (at a fraction of the cost).
Why not show us what that lens will do that other lenses cannot
The 135 would be framed too loose, and the 300 would be framed too tight.
Next?
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Jul 18, 2008 at 02:35 PM
p.2 #18EF 200 F2 Sample Images
For those that bitch about not seeing enough good work from the lens, go buy one so we can bitch at your work.
Sitting back and complaining about it is just typical cheap internet chatter showing how spoiled we've become.
Just enjoy what's there or put up the cash or shut up
Sitting back and complaining about it is just typical cheap internet chatter showing how spoiled we've become.
Just enjoy what's there or put up the cash or shut up
Jul 18, 2008 at 02:46 PM
p.2 #19EF 200 F2 Sample Images
PrecisionPhoto wrote:
For those that bitch about not seeing enough good work from the lens, go buy one so we can bitch at your work.
Sitting back and complaining about it is just typical cheap internet chatter showing how spoiled we've become.
Just enjoy what's there or put up the cash or shut up
That's certainly a valid view but I think there's another side to this that I learned firsthand. This lens is horribly expensive for 200mm. There's a lot of hesitancy in people to buy this lens. I struggled with the decsion too and even after buying it I tried selling it to cash out to pay for a new floor in my house, but had to give up that gambit because no one would pay anywhere close to my asking price. If you go to ebay and look at 200mm f/2 lenses that have sold you will see none have recently.
Canon's pricing has gotten really high lately and even those with cash to spend are having trouble bringing themselves to buy this lens. I think a lot of people want to and they want to be convinced; they want to see killer photos that will get them past whatever barrier they have now to purchasing the lens. It's the more impulsive dudes like myself who don't mind being a pioneer. I haven't shot much with it yet because when I'm trying to sell a lens I don't use it but now that I took it off the board I'm going to use it and see what it can really do. Hopefully I'll have some interesting results to post.
For those that bitch about not seeing enough good work from the lens, go buy one so we can bitch at your work.
Sitting back and complaining about it is just typical cheap internet chatter showing how spoiled we've become.
Just enjoy what's there or put up the cash or shut up
That's certainly a valid view but I think there's another side to this that I learned firsthand. This lens is horribly expensive for 200mm. There's a lot of hesitancy in people to buy this lens. I struggled with the decsion too and even after buying it I tried selling it to cash out to pay for a new floor in my house, but had to give up that gambit because no one would pay anywhere close to my asking price. If you go to ebay and look at 200mm f/2 lenses that have sold you will see none have recently.
Canon's pricing has gotten really high lately and even those with cash to spend are having trouble bringing themselves to buy this lens. I think a lot of people want to and they want to be convinced; they want to see killer photos that will get them past whatever barrier they have now to purchasing the lens. It's the more impulsive dudes like myself who don't mind being a pioneer. I haven't shot much with it yet because when I'm trying to sell a lens I don't use it but now that I took it off the board I'm going to use it and see what it can really do. Hopefully I'll have some interesting results to post.
Jul 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM
p.2 #20EF 200 F2 Sample Images
perspective wrote:
That's certainly a valid view but I think there's another side to this that I learned firsthand. This lens is horribly expensive for 200mm. There's a lot of hesitancy in people to buy this lens. I struggled with the decsion too and even after buying it I tried selling it to cash out to pay for a new floor in my house, but had to give up that gambit because no one would pay anywhere close to my asking price. If you go to ebay and look at 200mm f/2 lenses that have sold you will see none have recently.
Canon's...Show more →
Well said. In my case I purchase the lens because it is the perfect length for my stage photograhy in low light situations. I also shoot Horse racing events here in the winter months when lighting is not very good. Once again the 200mm is perfect length at the finish post.
Many would argue the 70-200 F2.8 or the 200F2.8 would do the job. My answer is they both dont give me F2 and a 1 stop advantage. Yes it cost a lot more to pay for the 1 stop advantage and I don't care if it does. I dont care if the 200 F1.8 takes better pictures as the lens is not in production anymore and to me IS is important to me. More importantly I feel good owning the 200 F2 and it is the right lens for the job I need to accomplish. I would have purchase the 200 F1.8 if it suited my needs but it doesn't as it has no IS.
Perry
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 03:52 PM
That's certainly a valid view but I think there's another side to this that I learned firsthand. This lens is horribly expensive for 200mm. There's a lot of hesitancy in people to buy this lens. I struggled with the decsion too and even after buying it I tried selling it to cash out to pay for a new floor in my house, but had to give up that gambit because no one would pay anywhere close to my asking price. If you go to ebay and look at 200mm f/2 lenses that have sold you will see none have recently.
Canon's...Show more →
Well said. In my case I purchase the lens because it is the perfect length for my stage photograhy in low light situations. I also shoot Horse racing events here in the winter months when lighting is not very good. Once again the 200mm is perfect length at the finish post.
Many would argue the 70-200 F2.8 or the 200F2.8 would do the job. My answer is they both dont give me F2 and a 1 stop advantage. Yes it cost a lot more to pay for the 1 stop advantage and I don't care if it does. I dont care if the 200 F1.8 takes better pictures as the lens is not in production anymore and to me IS is important to me. More importantly I feel good owning the 200 F2 and it is the right lens for the job I need to accomplish. I would have purchase the 200 F1.8 if it suited my needs but it doesn't as it has no IS.
Perry
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Jul 18, 2008 at 03:51 PM