I believe the Mark I and II versions of this lens are optically identical; only the hood design changed IIRC. (A step backwards in my view, since Canon's add-on hoods are way too big.)
This lens has about half the number of elements of the IS zoom, and yes, it's really sharp and good. My copy is about as sharp and has more contrast than the brand-new 200 2.0L that I had on test last month.
Got to love FM: just ordered one, y'all had me convinced
Decided to try an all prime trip to the Far East in January. Will be taking the 35, 85, 135 and 200 (all L's) instead of zooms. Looking forward to the 200. If it comes close to the 135 it'll be stunning.
Aberdeen Photo wrote:
Love that horse photo Trench. Kinda makes me want to get another 200 2.8; either version. Both are great lenses and better IQ, IMHO, than either of the 2.8 zooms.
Thanks a lot, Tom. It is a very under appreciated lens methinks. HNY!
Great choice. Last vacation I took a 24 135 and 1.4x, which both gave me a near 200 and a poor man's macro. Images are much better than the typical walk around zooms and vacations give you time to plan your shot, for the most part.
Have a great trip
Will,
I agree about the 200 2.8 being under appreciated. If Canon ever adds IS to this lens, it would be a great back of the church wedding and event lens.
The 200mm f/2.8L II is becoming my favorite lens. It is as sharp as a tack wide open and focuses rapidly and accurately even in questionable light. Coupled to a Canon 1.4x extender, there is VERY little degradation in image quality - or even focus speed - as long as the shots are well exposed and the scene has reasonable light. That combo regularly focuses much faster than my 17-40L.
With the possible exception of the 100 macro lens, this is likely Canon's best lens to dollar ratio by miles. Bonus is that it is comparatively light weight (vs. 24-70, 70-200, etc) and I can hand hold it consistently at around 1/100 sec shutter speeds.
Bokeh on the 200 prime is dreamy. I liked the bokeh on the 70-200 f/2.8 until I saw it on the prime...simply blows the zoom away.
I'll speak again for this lens and agree with all of the foregoing
recommendations. The f/2.8 200L is exceptional (if it's what
you need) and as a prime guy unused and undependent on IS
it's an enduring old friend and favorite to me.
I'll disagree with some and say that I find mine is AT LEAST
as sharp as the 135L with longer native reach, and I've NEVER
heard of a 'bad copy'.
I think the 200L 2.8 is one of the best lens in canons lineup. Especially for the price. Its light and easy to carry. In my opinion the 200L is better than using the long end of the 70-200L 2.8. One of my favorites.
I know there are alot of prime guys on here, and my last lens purchase was a prime, but whenever I try to use a prime I seem to constantly miss shots. I have no doubt the 200 2.8 has better IQ than my 70-200. But when 200 is not the right FL I rarely have time to switch lenses before the shot opportunity is gone. I don't know, the results of the two primes I own excite me more than the results of my zooms, still I use the zooms 90% of the time. That is why I bought the 70-200 instead of the 200 prime. Flexibility. If the flexibility is not important to you, I would absolutely go with the prime.
Dan, for a lot of events I depend on zooms as well. When the action is less hard-paced though, I prefer primes as I can take the time to prepare a shot. As a result, they almost always turn out better than the zoom shots where I tend to think less. And then I haven't even mentioned the better IQ of primes (sharpness wide open, bokeh, contrast).
So I use primes for a wide variety of shooting these days: weddings, street photography, travel, the occasional portrait. And I love it.
Aberdeen, thanks for the heads up. I'll probably take along the 17-40 for the occasional wide-angle, though I prefer compressed landscapes these days above most wide-angle shots.
I had both the 200mm F2.8 II L and the 135mm F2 L.
based on the 2 lenses I had ...
Personally I think the 200mm is just as sharp as the 135 @ 2.8
I also think the 200mm @ 2.8 is a better lens then the 135 + 1.4x. It appears sharper wide open & focuses faster.
I ended up selling the 135mm as I find the 200mm more useful overall. It is an excellent 200mm on the 5D, and a great 320mm F2.8 on the 50D.
I like the smaller size of the 200mm F2.8 II compared to the 70-200 F2.8 IS zoom. I borrowed a zoom and tried it out. The zoom is so large and heavy, I would end up not taking it on hikes.
To each their own. Choose the lenses that work for you.
I own the 135L, which I can supplement with a 1.4TC, giving a FL of almost [email protected]. Still, I also bought the 200mm 2.8. Reason for this is that I feel that the two lenses have different "character". The 135L explores the subject in every minute detail, in a way which can verge on the painful. The 200L is much more holistic, milder, kinder, without in any way being less sharp. If I want a photojournalism-style picture, it must be the 135L. If I want a "beautiful" picture, I tend to pick my 200L. Both lenses are a joy to use, just, in my case, a different flavor of joy.
With my 70-200/2.8 IS I just keep on shooting.