p.22 #10 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
epuja wrote:
would the 200mm f/2.8L be a good choice in lieu of the F/2L? Would there be a huge difference in IQ? I understand the IS and the aperture differences.
An excellent question, Epuja.
200 f/2.8 as well as 135L are good and economical "emulators" of 200 f/2 IS performance.
The difference in IQ is certainly not earthshattering and can be diminished thru photographer's skill, use of a tripod, increased ISO, reducing the distance to target (in case of 135L) etc.
p.22 #11 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
PetKal wrote:
An excellent question, Epuja.
200 f/2.8 as well as 135L are good and economical "emulators" of 200 f/2 IS performance.
The difference in IQ is certainly not earthshattering and can be diminished thru photographer's skill, use of a tripod, increased ISO, reducing the distance to target (in case of 135L) etc.
thanks a lot for ur kind response.. I am seriously considering purchasing the 200mm F/2.8L before the bing cashback ends.
p.22 #15 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Epuja,
Between the 200 f2.8 and the 135 f2, I'd probably go for the 135 unless you really need the 200mm focal length. I liked the 200 f2.8 when I had it, but it's difficult to handhold without IS so be prepared to use high shutter speeds. It's more of an outdoor lens.
p.22 #16 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Mike Liu wrote:
Epuja,
Between the 200 f2.8 and the 135 f2, I'd probably go for the 135 unless you really need the 200mm focal length. I liked the 200 f2.8 when I had it, but it's difficult to handhold without IS so be prepared to use high shutter speeds. It's more of an outdoor lens.
Thanks Mike for the feedback - I will keep that in mind. I figure with the high iso of 5d-II i should be ok.
p.22 #17 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
epuja wrote:
Thanks Mike for the feedback - I will keep that in mind. I figure with the high iso of 5d-II i should be ok.
If I had to sell my 200/2 I would replace it with the 135L, which is what I used before I got the 200/2. Shooting at f/2 is not the same as shooting at f/2.8. The shorter focal length AND extra stop in speed means you can have shutter speeds ~1 2/3rds stop slower than with the 200/2.8 and not worry about camera shake. Plus, you can toss on a 1.4x teleconverter to get 200/2.8
If you need focal length for animal/bird shots, you're better off getting the 300/4 or 400/5.6. For portraits, and especially sports, I highly recommend the 135L instead.
p.22 #19 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Comments above brought my attention. I bought a 200/2.8 lately and used it at a travel telephoto as I don't want the weight of 100-400L. Also used this lens for some indoor stage performance but I find that even with good ISO performance of 5D2, I still think IS will give me a much better keeper rate. 200/2.8 in good light is indeed amazing though. I may consider a trade for 135/2.
p.22 #20 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
pchew wrote:
Comments above brought my attention. I bought a 200/2.8 lately and used it at a travel telephoto as I don't want the weight of 100-400L. Also used this lens for some indoor stage performance but I find that even with good ISO performance of 5D2, I still think IS will give me a much better keeper rate. 200/2.8 in good light is indeed amazing though. I may consider a trade for 135/2.
Interesting...thanks for the valuable input.
