p.1 #1 · Review of the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS (w/astro)
Finally finished my comprehensive review of the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS. I posted this in the gear talk forum, but I thought this might be of interest to wedding photographers. I did get to use it at a wedding-- 1/20th sec handheld shots from the balcony in a cave of a church-- but I didn't include any of those photos in this initial draft. I will probably add those photos next week. The review is posted here
p.1 #2 · Review of the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS (w/astro)
Kudos for putting in the work to post the review.
I wanted this lens, but I couldn't justify the cost and I really don't like the white color on it. At weddings, it's a monster. So I went and picked up a Nikon D3 & 200 2.0. Haven't looked back. I use my Canon equipment for many of my shots, but the 200 can not be beat for its range and IQ.
I may pick this up maybe in a couple of years when the price isn't insane. Till then, the VR 200 is butter baby. So is this though.
p.1 #6 · Review of the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS (w/astro)
Aberdeen Photo wrote:
Thank you Andrew for sharing this...
It looks dreamy and a bit easier to hold than my 200 1.8, which will have to do until the price domes down a bit...
Nice review also. It looks wonderful w/ the 1.4 also,
Tom
Thanks Tom. For regular use, the 1.4x TC has almost unnoticeable image degredation. Autofocus was just as snappy as well. Sports photogs will like the combo for field sports.
p.1 #7 · Review of the Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS (w/astro)
asimsoofi wrote:
I wanted this lens, but I couldn't justify the cost and I really don't like the white color on it. At weddings, it's a monster. So I went and picked up a Nikon D3 & 200 2.0. Haven't looked back. I use my Canon equipment for many of my shots, but the 200 can not be beat for its range and IQ.
/asim
None of that sentence makes any sense to me except the "white color" bit - color is personal But AFAIK 200mm Nikon = 200mm Canon. Nikon f2 = Canon f2.
