What about my Circa 1991 85L MKI?
Any special poisons or radioactive material in that sucker?
dcmiller wrote:
On a more serious note, it doesn't appear that new technologies can completely replace the wonderful poisons and radioactive material used to enhance diffraction in old great glass. Some of these lenses really are irreplaceable. The 200/1.8 will probably be unique in performance for many years.
dcmiller wrote:
Oh come on. I can't see it. "Damn this 200 f2. I could have gotten that shot with the 1.8".
I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference between 800 iso and 1250 on most of my cameras. Sports and evening event shooters really are desperate for every quarter stop they can find, so yes, most times I go out to work there are quite a lot of shots that I can get with a 200 f1.8 that I couldn't quite pull off with the f2(.3) version. Here's an example of the kind of shot where that 2/3rds of a stop can make the difference between a keeper and junk: http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/isomatters.jpg
Every 1/3 of a stop matters. 2/3 of a stop is big news.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
What about my Circa 1991 85L MKI?
Any special poisons or radioactive material in that sucker?
Nick san, I have it on a good authority that neither 85L nor design-related 50 f/1.0 contain(ed) anything as mundane as lead in order to prop the refractive indices of the glass deployed. Canon uses (used) more refined stuff in those lenses.
As far as 200 f/1.8 goes, I have never found any indication that lead might have been used in that one either........and I did look for it. However, I kinda doubt it.
(I know that young 'uns on POTN and DPR and such fora like to chat about lead as a curse of EOS. )
thanks for the side-by-side report, I was wondering when this would happen. FYI I did a review of this lens myself, and I came to many of the same conclusions. The IS truly does have 5 stops of improvement if you are careful (i.e. take a second to let the lens stabilize, don't move suddenly etc). I was easily able to get sharp handheld shots at 1/5 sec. Of course, that's a useless shutter speed for people photography, but it can be done.
No one will argue over the improved ergonomics over the 1.8.
I am surprised to see it, but no one should be arguing over the better light transmission of the 1.8-- and shutter speed is king for sports 'togs.
That said, for weddings and events, the 200/2 is the ideal choice. It's a 135L on steroids and I wish I still had it. For sports togs, about the only advantage (besides handholding ergonomics) I could see it having over the 1.8 is the warranty repairs. For monopod shooters, the ergonomics become less important. Plus, the 1.8 can be had for less money. Glad to see the price dropping on the 200/2. If/when it gets to be around the 300/2.8 IS price I might make the switch. It really is overpriced IMO at the moment.
thanks for the notes, ariel.
i finally pulled the trigger today to get me one of these! it's still a bit pricey compared to other big L, but i am sure waiting for the price to come down to the 300 2.8 IS level is just wishful thinking. i think it will finally be sitting around 4.5k.
i read the reviews but nothing is said about the performance with the 2xII. If it is good, I think the 400 DO will take another beat!
Here are my thoughts on the two. While I haven't use both side by side, I have used both, more so the 1.8 over the years.
My technique for hand holding the 1.8 was to grip it by the tripod foot and use either my pinkie or ring finger to tweak focus manually. Because the 1.8 uses 'fly by wire' MF, the focus ring is super light to the touch and easy to manipulate (but of course, can also be too easy). I never found holding it by the barrel between the focus ring and camera body to be comfortable/workable.
The lightness of the f/2 is amazing. Combined with an excellent IS system, this is really a hand holdable lens. I set the AF-stop buttons to activate the IS when needed (this is how I can shoot sports and quickly activate IS for stationary subjects between plays) and compared to the IS in the 300 2.8 I was comparing against it, this lens is amazing. There is a very noticeable improvement in image stability. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon release a new line of super-tele lenses soon, in part to incorporate the improved IS. One nitpick I have with the f/2 is that the AF-stop buttons felt smaller than on the 400 & 600 and I had trouble keeping a button depressed to keep the IS running. Granted, the lens I tried was apparently a pre-production model, so it's possible the feel of the buttons has been improved. Another plus for the f/2 is the better close focusing ability. I always brought along the EF12 exentsion tube when shooting with the 1.8 for tight head shots.... now with the f/2 I didn't find I needed it.
garyvot wrote:
It's not that uncommon for lenses to transmit less light at maximum aperture than their rated f-stop would indicate. (If you like, you can think of it as vignetting that extends over most of the frame.) A few I can think of off the top of my head are the 28 1.8, 85 1.8 and 20 2.8. Most of Canon's long tele primes don't really show this effect, but it sounds like the 200 2.0 may to some degree. (I have yet to use this lens, unfortunately.)
dcmiller wrote:
I wish the 135/2 was much more expensive so I could justify the 200/2. Someone please tell me that the resale on the 200/2 is so good that it's more like an investment..........
(Now it's five stops IS?? Do I hear six? who will give me six??)
I'll sell you my "Mint" 135 f2.0 for $4,950. As for investment, you are not going to lose 50% of the cost in 2 months like most people did with their retirement plans!!
rscheffler wrote:
The lightness of the f/2 is amazing. Combined with an excellent IS system, this is really a hand holdable lens.
Man, I totally agree with this. As a former 200 1.8 owner, this thread got me curious to try the 200 f/2, so I rented one from Glazer's in Seattle for the weekend.
From a usability perspective, there is no comparison between these lenses, IMHO. The new lens is much lighter than I expected (I checked the specs--it's about a pound lighter than the 200 1.8 or the Nikkor 200 f/2 VR). and it seems very well balanced as a package, not front-heavy like the 1.8. The IS is fantastic too. These factors in combination makes it very easy to hand-hold this lens, something I would never do with the old lens.
Sharpness (so far) seems excellent too. However, the f/2 seems to have a bit less contrast than the 200 2.8L in my tests. I'm not too worried about this (as long as the sharpness is there) since it's easy to recover in post and lower contrast can be a benefit in retaining greater dynamic range in some shooting situations.
An impressive package, though still specialized I think on full-frame. I do wish that Canon would put IS in the 135 f/2 and 200 2.8...
tigerp wrote:
i read the reviews but nothing is said about the performance with the 2xII. If it is good, I think the 400 DO will take another beat!
Given my experience with the 1.4xII, the results I got were identical as the 1.4xII on the 300/2.8. I also got identical results with the 2x Kenko TC on the 200/2 and 300/2.8. I would suspect / expect performance with the Canon 2x II would be identical to that of the 300/2.8 + 2x. Therefore, whatever people say bout the 2x on the 300/2.8 will likely apply to the 200/2.
The performance was identical - 1 stop from wide open to regain edge sharpness with the 1.4x TC, 2 stops for the 2x TC. That means 400mm f/8 to get the same / similar sharpness the bare 200mm lens has.
the-digital-picture.com probably has 200/2 + 2x TC test shots which you can compare to the 400DO. My hunch is the 400 will be sharper wide open than the 200/2 + 2x TC wide open.
I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference between 800 iso and 1250 on most of my cameras. Sports and evening event shooters really are desperate for every quarter stop they can find, so yes, most times I go out to work there are quite a lot of shots that I can get with a 200 f1.8 that I couldn't quite pull off with the f2(.3) version. Here's an example of the kind of shot where that 2/3rds of a stop can make the difference between a keeper and junk:
...............
Every 1/3 of a stop matters. 2/3 of a stop is big news....Show more →
I remember shooting people in candlelight with the D60 and a 50 1.4. I must have be temporally insane
In the shot you posted one stop of properly color balanced flash would probably make for a better image anyway, regardless of motion blur.
the-digital-picture.com probably has 200/2 + 2x TC test shots which you can compare to the 400DO. My hunch is the 400 will be sharper wide open than the 200/2 + 2x TC wide open.
I've looked at this comparison a lot.
This issue seems to always come back to a universal truth: If what you really need is a longer lens, buy the longer lens. All the expensive primes are fine with a 2X (the DO perhaps being somewhat borderline, I don't know). But a lot of the specialness is gone. I'm confident a good copy of the 100-400L IS outperforms the 200/2 with 2x. (of course there's no comparison at 200 and 280).
I sold my 300 2.8 when I found I always used a TC. That doesn't mean that I won't buy a 200/2. Just that buying it isn't a rational business decision for me. But Christmas is coming.......
dcmiller wrote:
In the shot you posted one stop of properly color balanced flash would probably make for a better image anyway, regardless of motion blur.
...but what would you do about the smear? The only thing you can do is shorten the shutter speed, at which point your 1 stop of fill flash becomes the primary light source, and you are looking at a very different kind of picture. Are you seriously advising me, with the benefit of your experience, to use flash with a long lens on a shot like the following? http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/profilenoflash.jpg
Or should I switch repeatedly between flash and no flash when using a long lens to get shots at tables in various directions? Flash shots are flash shots, low light shots are low light shots. Let's not confuse them. Flash would have ruined the shot above, and so would laughter. 2/3rds of a stop is a big advantage for this kind of situation, and increases the keeper rate considerably.
