# Gear of Yesteryear: DPReviewTV reviews the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 23, 2021)

> Here is a fun review of an epic Canon lens from the past. In this episode of Gear of Yesteryear, DPReviewTV reviews the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM. To some, it is regarded as one of the best lenses that Canon has ever made, to others… well they still think it’s awesome.
> The Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM is a relatively easy lens to come by, as they are regularly available on eBay. I purchased this lens used from the Fred Miranda forum for about $3000 USD. I didn’t need a mint copy and so the price was right.
> These lenses can be repaired, there is a company in Michigan that can apparently rebuild the autofocus motors and make other repairs on it. Canon themselves won’t do any sort of repairs. So you need to know that going in, but these lenses are as reliable as any big white Canon L lens.
> You can check out the sample gallery from the review here.
> Canon EF...



Continue reading...


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 23, 2021)

That's a _great_ review! The images from this lens are beautiful with the smooth background blur.
Now, if only Canon would come out with a RF version of this lens, or other wide open (~90-110 mm entrance pupil) telephoto lenses ... ooooohhh!


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Jan 23, 2021)

Cool little test. I have wondered how my 200 f1.8 would perform on an R5. I agree with their assessment of the colour saturation and contrast...it really is part of the magic of this lens. The lens is the same on my 6D. No where did it mention that they used the eye detection AF on the camera...so we don't know. And to that end, one thing I found a little confusing was that they said the lens focused on the eye lashes instead of the iris. It is the camera AF algorithm that selects the focus point...not the lens.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 23, 2021)

Darrell Cadieux said:


> Cool little test. I have wondered how my 200 f1.8 would perform on an R5. I agree with their assessment of the colour saturation and contrast...it really is part of the magic of this lens. The lens is the same on my 6D. No where did it mention that they used the eye detection AF on the camera...so we don't know. And to that end, one thing I found a little confusing was that they said the lens focused on the eye lashes instead of the iris. It is the camera AF algorithm that selects the focus point...not the lens.



The lens focus system might not be accurate/repeatable enough for this application. Canon never confirmed it, but things like the RF70-200 focus issue on launch strongly imply that the AF system is open loop, it doesn't confirm focus after the lens focussed to the distance the camera told it to focus at.

I would be nice if Canon offered an option to use DPAF to get the lens focussed quickly and then use the good old CDAF to fine-tune it.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 23, 2021)

What a great lens! I didn't even know this existed. Thanks for this, Craig, and thanks to the reviewers.


----------



## zim (Jan 23, 2021)

I think I'd rather have the f/2L  (ok it's not a very fair comparison but still)








Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## wtlloyd (Jan 23, 2021)

Good luck getting repair parts for it, if you can even find someone who will work on it. I loved my pristine late-year copy, but sold it to fund a 600 f/4. 
It was awfully front-heavy, I understand the newish 200/f2 is much better in that regard.


----------



## allanP (Jan 23, 2021)

It seems that the quality was better in the past








Lensrentals tears down a Canon RF 100-500mm F4.7-7.1 lens to solve the mystery of a cracked element


Roger and Aaron tear down a Canon RF 100-500mm F4.7-7.1 lens to get to the bottom of a cracked element hidden somewhere inside.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Viggo (Jan 23, 2021)

The only reason I keep the RF-EF adapter is if I decide to go for this or the 200 f2 again. Seeing the gallery at DPreview makes me want to get one again. To me, nothing comes close..


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 23, 2021)

wtlloyd said:


> Good luck getting repair parts for it, if you can even find someone who will work on it. I loved my pristine late-year copy, but sold it to fund a 600 f/4.
> It was awfully front-heavy, I understand the newish 200/f2 is much better in that regard.



There is a place in Michigan that can rebuild these lenses including the AF motors.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There is a place in Michigan that can rebuild these lenses including the AF motors.


Now that is a piece of information made of gold!


----------



## Chig (Jan 23, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There is a place in Michigan that can rebuild these lenses including the AF motors.


Can they repair other old L glass like the original EF300mm f2.8 non IS ?


----------



## Otara (Jan 23, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The lens focus system might not be accurate/repeatable enough for this application. Canon never confirmed it, but things like the RF70-200 focus issue on launch strongly imply that the AF system is open loop, it doesn't confirm focus after the lens focussed to the distance the camera told it to focus at.
> 
> I would be nice if Canon offered an option to use DPAF to get the lens focussed quickly and then use the good old CDAF to fine-tune it.



They also talked about increased haze and lower contrast, slower focus, and it being more about hit rate - given the increased distance as well, I wonder if it all combined a bit compared to the 85mm 1.2 RF she's used to.


----------



## dolina (Jan 23, 2021)

I was just rereading about this lens 13 hours before.

It was removed from Canon's product catalogue in 2003 and was selling for $3,400 of that time's money. This was when I got my first dSLR the EOS 10D. Manufacturing of that lens ended years earlier.

I've spoken to owners of this lens who also bought the 200/2.0 IS and they all consistently said that the 200/2.0 IS is a better buy even if it's 1/3 stop slower.

But for photogs who just run on numbers and not handled it practically the f/1.8 number on a 200mm is just mind blowing.

Here's my gallery of 200/2.0 photos

And an improvised lens cap.



Selecta Ice Cream by dolina, on Flickr


----------



## PhilA (Jan 23, 2021)

A little remembered fact is that a version of the EF200f1.8L was the last lens to be made in the NFD mount.


----------



## slclick (Jan 23, 2021)

I have always lusted after both of those versions and due to budgets, settled for the other 200, the 2.8L, which is no slouch itself. It made a great complement to the 135L, esp since I am not a fan of 70-200's.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 23, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The lens focus system might not be accurate/repeatable enough for this application. Canon never confirmed it, but things like the RF70-200 focus issue on launch strongly imply that the AF system is open loop, it doesn't confirm focus after the lens focussed to the distance the camera told it to focus at.
> 
> I would be nice if Canon offered an option to use DPAF to get the lens focussed quickly and then use the good old CDAF to fine-tune it.


Regarding eye AF, I hold down the button I assigned to "eye AF" which tracks the eye (and I assume continuously AF's on it) while I take photos. So it should be focusing continuously and I get great results. But it can't guarantee it is on the eye vs the eye lashes every time since it has a limited number of discreet AF spots and the eye iris & pupil often do not fall on the spot whereas the skin around them will then hit the point of focus.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 23, 2021)

zim said:


> I think I'd rather have the f/2L  (ok it's not a very fair comparison but still)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hopefully we'll get a RF 200mm f2L eventually. I hope (and expect) it has a max. mag. closer to 0.25x or above (vs 0.12x in the EF version) since the RF designs often have much higher max. mag. values from their closer min. focus distances.


----------



## dolina (Jan 24, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Hopefully we'll get a RF 200mm f2L eventually. I hope (and expect) it has a max. mag. closer to 0.25x or above (vs 0.12x in the EF version) since the RF designs often have much higher max. mag. values from their closer min. focus distances.


Would be nicer if Canon offered a RF 200mm f/1.8 IS, 85mm f/1.0 IS and 50mm f/1.0 IS so it would have more than double digit for both lens and body.

Photos of this remarkable EF lens of two different owners



200mm f/1.8L USM by dolina, on Flickr



Pat Te Seng by dolina, on Flickr


----------



## navastronia (Jan 24, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have always lusted after both of those versions and due to budgets, settled for the other 200, the 2.8L, which is no slouch itself. It made a great complement to the 135L, esp since I am not a fan of 70-200's.



Here, here! I quite like my slim, light, 200/2.8 L II, which I picked up for a very reasonable sum on Ebay this time last year.


----------



## tjphoto (Jan 24, 2021)

I have a 200 1.8 and a 200 2.0 and love them both. The 1.8 works fantastic on the R5.
I bought the 2.0 because the 1.8 stopped focusing . After a few years I tried it on the R and it’s back.
Could someone please give the name of the repair place in Michigan?
I wa told they are not repairable. 
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Can they repair other old L glass like the original EF300mm f2.8 non IS ?



As far as I know, they can repair any EF Canon lens.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2021)

tjphoto said:


> I have a 200 1.8 and a 200 2.0 and love them both. The 1.8 works fantastic on the R5.
> I bought the 2.0 because the 1.8 stopped focusing . After a few years I tried it on the R and it’s back.
> Could someone please give the name of the repair place in Michigan?
> I wa told they are not repairable.
> ...







__





Midwest Camera Repair - Wyandotte, Michigan - 734.285.2220


CAMERA REPAIR SERVICE for Digital camera, Film Camera, projectors, lenses, audio visual and carousels; for professional & amature -- FREE Online Estimate Form.



www.midwestcamera.com


----------



## Fischer (Jan 24, 2021)

Heavy like hell and unwieldy. But beautiful - even unique - rendering. Pretty much sums it up for me. Never got to use it on the 5DSR, but it performed very well on the previous Canon DSLRs. The newer 200mm f2.0 is a much better build and is not nearly as cumbersome in use. The big advantage of the f1.8 was its lead elements. It took Canon years to come up with coatings to compensate effectively for removing the lead. That is why several older Canon lenses were optically better than their predecessors. The - less than stellar - original 70-200mm f2.8 IS L being the most notorious case. The 200mm f1.8 btw got a bad rap, because Canon officially stopped servicing it only a couple of years after they stopped production. Ouch...


----------



## risto0 (Jan 24, 2021)

She said in the video that RF lenses enable R5 to focus on eye iris. But EF lenses focus on eye lashes (probably because they try to focus on eye iris but if an eye lash gets between the iris and camera then camera focuses on the item closer to the camera). I've never heard that before. So is this true that only RF lenses manage to focus on eye iris even if the eye lash gets into the way?


----------



## dolina (Jan 24, 2021)

This is the most watched video on the 200/1.8


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 24, 2021)

This blog confirms what I always have been convinced of.
It's not the wide-open MTFs which matter, but a lens' rendering, or should I name it character?
A clinically sharp lens, like some Sigmas, sometimes lack the "magic" wide-open rendering of some vintage lenses (Canon EF 1,2/85, Summilux 1,4/75 etc...).
Sharpness certainly matters, contrast too, but imperfections have advantages as well.
To repeat myself: a lens isn't designed for shooting charts...


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 24, 2021)

dolina said:


> This is the most watched video on the 200/1.8


Thanks for the post, Dolina. It was a good video to see. I guess the LensLibrary in Malaysia is a special place for cameras in that part of the world?


----------



## dolina (Jan 24, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the post, Dolina. It was a good video to see. I guess the LensLibrary in Malaysia is a special place for cameras in that part of the world?


Haven't been back to Malaysia since the 2000 Malaysian GP.  I just did a youtube search on the lens.

Before COVID I was planning to go there for a food trip. I think round trip tickets are ~$250.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 24, 2021)

dolina said:


> Haven't been back to Malaysia since the 2000 Malaysian GP.  I just did a youtube search on the lens.
> 
> Before COVID I was planning to go there for a food trip. I think round trip tickets are ~$250.


What do you mean by a "food trip"? Enjoying eating at their food places, or buying special cooking supplies? (I'm just curious)


----------



## dolina (Jan 24, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> What do you mean by a "food trip"? Enjoying eating at their food places, or buying special cooking supplies? (I'm just curious)


Leisure travel to eat Nasi goreng, sight seeing and a bit of shopping.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2021)

risto0 said:


> She said in the video that RF lenses enable R5 to focus on eye iris. But EF lenses focus on eye lashes (probably because they try to focus on eye iris but if an eye lash gets between the iris and camera then camera focuses on the item closer to the camera). I've never heard that before. So is this true that only RF lenses manage to focus on eye iris even if the eye lash gets into the way?


I have two EF mount lenses. One is from Canon, and one from Tamron. I have had no issues as a portrait shooter at all. Maybe the problem is specific to certain lenses? I wouldn't know. Admittedly, I use an R, not the R5.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 24, 2021)

Ohhhhh woooow! Totally amazing images! This lense really sparked my interest since my EF 100-400mm sometimes isn't bright enough to take pictures of forest wildlife at dawn. The only downsides: 
- weight 
- even tough 20 years old, I so far only found one offer on eBay Germany and it is still at 4.500 $... I'll keep looking 

If Canon were to make an RF Version of this lense: Is there any chance it would be a lot lighter? 
Although, I don´ think I could ever afford an RF 200 F1.8 (F2.0) with the RF markup prices. But I least I've got a new dream


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> This blog confirms what I always have been convinced of.
> It's not the wide-open MTFs which matter, but a lens' rendering, or should I name it character?
> A clinically sharp lens, like some Sigmas, sometimes lack the "magic" wide-open rendering of some vintage lenses (Canon EF 1,2/85, Summilux 1,4/75 etc...).
> Sharpness certainly matters, contrast too, but imperfections have advantages as well.
> To repeat myself: a lens isn't designed for shooting charts...


the 135L


----------



## Fischer (Jan 24, 2021)

risto0 said:


> She said in the video that RF lenses enable R5 to focus on eye iris. But EF lenses focus on eye lashes (probably because they try to focus on eye iris but if an eye lash gets between the iris and camera then camera focuses on the item closer to the camera). I've never heard that before. So is this true that only RF lenses manage to focus on eye iris even if the eye lash gets into the way?


I heard this from others. Have not seen it myself. But then again - there's hardly any people to shoot these days... .


----------



## Fischer (Jan 24, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Ohhhhh woooow! Totally amazing images! This lense really sparked my interest since my EF 100-400mm sometimes isn't bright enough to take pictures of forest wildlife at dawn. The only downsides:
> - weight
> - even tough 20 years old, I so far only found one offer on eBay Germany and it is still at 4.500 $... I'll keep looking
> 
> ...


The new 200mm f/2.0 is so much better to use. Even if only a little lighter. Expect a new super-fast 200mm would be still lighter to use. Count on a half pound less for the lens and another half for your wallet.


----------



## F4CPhan (Jan 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There is a place in Michigan that can rebuild these lenses including the AF motors.


As an owner of one of these lenses, can you provide the info on the Michigan repair facility? Thanks in advance!


----------



## briangus (Jan 24, 2021)

A few of the 200mm F1.8's popped up in the 2nd hand camera shops in Singapore a while back.
I was thinking who in their right minds would lug one of these about, just looked so big.

Piqued my interest though and reading a few reviews decided to buy one.
Unfortunately for me they were all gone when I went to buy.
After a couple of months I gave up and bought the 200mm F2
My favourite Canon lens, works well on the adaptor with the R, not had a chance to try out on the R5 but hopefully soon


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 24, 2021)

Fischer said:


> The new 200mm f/2.0 is so much better to use. Even if only a little lighter. Expect a new super-fast 200mm would be still lighter to use. Count on a half pound less for the lens and another half for your wallet.



Thx for the reply. I didn't have in mind that the F1.8 doesn't have IS. 
I'll look for a used F2.0 but I doubt there'll be a "cheap" one available. I'll probably just stick to my 100-400mm or may upgrade to the RF 100-500mm one day.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2021)

briangus said:


> A few of the 200mm F1.8's popped up in the 2nd hand camera shops in Singapore a while back.
> I was thinking who in their right minds would lug one of these about, just looked so big.
> 
> Piqued my interest though and reading a few reviews decided to buy one.
> ...



I own the f/2 as well as the 1.8. It's a brilliant lens and definitely has a more modern rendering and better ergonomics.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Jan 25, 2021)

navastronia said:


> Here, here! I quite like my slim, light, 200/2.8 L II, which I picked up for a very reasonable sum on Ebay this time last year.



I love the 2.8 L II as well. I can carry my camera around without any extra effort and even carry it around with me in my messenger bag when I may or may not need it. If I was lugging around the 2.0, I would need a caddy.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 25, 2021)

This and the 600 f/4L IS USM are the reason I am still thinking of Canon bodies. At this point I have about 9 EF lenses but no Canon bodies. I have shot the EF 200mm f/1.8 with my 5D4 and never felt like it focused on eye lashes. I did micro focus adjustment on Canon DSLRs. I know that is not a thing for mirrorless cameras. The two things I don't like about this lens is the weight and the MFD. The MFD is 18 feet for this lens. This is a fantastic lens for portraits and there is none like this in any other mounts that I am aware of.


----------



## Tom Raymond (Jan 25, 2021)

I purchased this lens about 20 years ago. It is still in good working order, except I have had to replace screws that hold the shade in place. My primary use is basketball, and other indoor sports. Never had a case, as I bought it used on eBay. One historical note: My understanding is that this lens has flourite elements in it, and Canon dc'd production due to environmental concerns at the factory, and replaced it with the 200mm F2.0L. I also understand there is someone who shoots alot of horse racing, and owns seven of these 1.8 lenses to use as remotes.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 25, 2021)

dolina said:


> Leisure travel to eat Nasi goreng, sight seeing and a bit of shopping.



I've been to Indonesia (which has the same word for the same food) and that's good stuff. As was a lot of other things there.

I can't just casually fly there for nasi goreng, though...not when it's 30+ hours one way from Colorado USA!


----------



## dolina (Jan 25, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I've been to Indonesia (which has the same word for the same food) and that's good stuff. As was a lot of other things there.
> 
> I can't just casually fly there for nasi goreng, though...not when it's 30+ hours one way from Colorado USA!


I think it's just a 3+ hour trip for us though


----------



## SteveC (Jan 26, 2021)

dolina said:


> I think it's just a 3+ hour trip for us though



Even at your airfare, though, it's still what pilots call the $100 hamburger. (You fly your private aircraft to another airport to eat the food in the pilot's restaurant. By the time you pay for fuel and wear and tear on the plane that hamburger cost you big bucks.)


----------



## dolina (Jan 26, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Even at your airfare, though, it's still what pilots call the $100 hamburger. (You fly your private aircraft to another airport to eat the food in the pilot's restaurant. By the time you pay for fuel and wear and tear on the plane that hamburger cost you big bucks.)


I know people who do it worse than me. 

Some just book at the airport for Hong Kong for lunch. Be back at home for dinner. Just because they want a Michelin star meal

Flying to the province cost $40 for a round trip. The check-in counter of the first flight often issues you a ticket for the return flight if you have no intention to have check-in baggage.


----------



## dolina (Jan 27, 2021)

¥456,000 in 1999 = ¥458,775.31 or $4,422.34 or ₱212,628.40 in 2021


----------



## BruderTux (Jan 27, 2021)

Seems like the perfect lens for socially distanced shooting.


----------



## Fischer (Jan 27, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> This and the 600 f/4L IS USM are the reason I am still thinking of Canon bodies. At this point I have about 9 EF lenses but no Canon bodies. I have shot the EF 200mm f/1.8 with my 5D4 and never felt like it focused on eye lashes. I did micro focus adjustment on Canon DSLRs. I know that is not a thing for mirrorless cameras. The two things I don't like about this lens is the weight and the MFD. The MFD is 18 feet for this lens. This is a fantastic lens for portraits and there is none like this in any other mounts that I am aware of.


Nikon - and its cheaper.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Nikon - and its cheaper.


Yeah well, if a person is a Canon shooter with Canon mount lenses, switching over to Nikon from Canon is absolutely not less expensive. These types of arguments are silly, in my opinion. The average person can’t afford to switch systems at will.

Besides, why would one desire “cheap” stuff as opposed to “quality “ stuff. I’m not saying Nikon makes cheap stuff, you did. Just pointing out the obvious misuse of the word “cheap”.


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah well, if a person is a Canon shooter with Canon mount lenses, switching over to Nikon from Canon is absolutely not less expensive. These types of arguments are silly, in my opinion. The average person can’t afford to switch systems at will.
> 
> Besides, why would one desire “cheap” stuff as opposed to “quality “ stuff. I’m not saying Nikon makes cheap stuff, you did. Just pointing out the obvious misuse of the word “cheap”.


This place doesn't look as near as fun... https://nikonrumors.com


----------



## Fischer (Jan 27, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah well, if a person is a Canon shooter with Canon mount lenses, switching over to Nikon from Canon is absolutely not less expensive. These types of arguments are silly, in my opinion. The average person can’t afford to switch systems at will.


Think you need to re-read the thread again...


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Nikon - and its cheaper.


If you are referring to the Nikon f/2 200, it is the same price as the Canon. $5699. Is there a 1.8 Nikon I am not aware of? 

If I did not get the gist of your post either, perhaps next time you could use more than 4 words to make your point.


----------



## johnhenry (Jan 27, 2021)

wtlloyd said:


> Good luck getting repair parts for it, if you can even find someone who will work on it. I loved my pristine late-year copy, but sold it to fund a 600 f/4.
> It was awfully front-heavy, I understand the newish 200/f2 is much better in that regard.


The lens is mostly solid metal or glass inside.


----------



## johnhenry (Jan 27, 2021)

tjphoto said:


> I have a 200 1.8 and a 200 2.0 and love them both. The 1.8 works fantastic on the R5.
> I bought the 2.0 because the 1.8 stopped focusing . After a few years I tried it on the R and it’s back.
> Could someone please give the name of the repair place in Michigan?
> I wa told they are not repairable.
> ...


When Canon stopped repairing them, companies dumped all their spare parts and I picked up a PAIR of NOS focus motors. AFAIK, these motors can be used in the 200mm f/1.8, the original 300mm f/2.8 and 600mmf/4 and the 1200mm f/5.6.


----------



## johnhenry (Jan 27, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> This and the 600 f/4L IS USM are the reason I am still thinking of Canon bodies. At this point I have about 9 EF lenses but no Canon bodies. I have shot the EF 200mm f/1.8 with my 5D4 and never felt like it focused on eye lashes. I did micro focus adjustment on Canon DSLRs. I know that is not a thing for mirrorless cameras. The two things I don't like about this lens is the weight and the MFD. The MFD is 18 feet for this lens. This is a fantastic lens for portraits and there is none like this in any other mounts that I am aware of.


The Minimum Focus Distance is 2.5m or 8.2 feet


----------



## johnhenry (Jan 27, 2021)

Tom Raymond said:


> I purchased this lens about 20 years ago. It is still in good working order, except I have had to replace screws that hold the shade in place. My primary use is basketball, and other indoor sports. Never had a case, as I bought it used on eBay. One historical note: My understanding is that this lens has flourite elements in it, and Canon dc'd production due to environmental concerns at the factory, and replaced it with the 200mm F2.0L. I also understand there is someone who shoots alot of horse racing, and owns seven of these 1.8 lenses to use as remotes.


Fluorite is grow in a laboratory, and has few concerns. They got rid of all their lead formula glass which included a lot of the high index stuff you need for certain elements. It was easier to design a new one at f/2.0


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 28, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Think you need to re-read the thread again...


Nah. The four words of your post are not hard to remember. Is there an adapter for Nikon F to either EF or RF with the necessary electrical connections for IS and AF? There are without the connections, so the Nikon lens becomes manual focus... no matter what the model. I, personally, would stick to a Canon with AF for what I do. Why you'd bring Nikon into this thread is a mystery. Maybe you should read the thread again? It's about a Canon legacy lens.


----------



## tjphoto (Jan 29, 2021)

johnhenry said:


> When Canon stopped repairing them, companies dumped all their spare parts and I picked up a PAIR of NOS focus motors. AFAIK, these motors can be used in the 200mm f/1.8, the original 300mm f/2.8 and 600mmf/4 and the 1200mm f/5.6.


Wow, what would it take for you to part with one?


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 7, 2021)

johnhenry said:


> The Minimum Focus Distance is 2.5m or 8.2 feet



Sounds like you are correct.


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 7, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Nikon - and its cheaper.



If you meant to say Nikon has a 200mm f/1.8 I cannot find any reference to that lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> If you meant to say Nikon has a 200mm f/1.8 I cannot find any reference to that lens.


No they never did, but can any of us really claim to know the difference between f1.8 and f2.0? Nikon made their ultra fast 200mm long (15 years!) before Canon came out with their fractionally faster version.


----------



## tjphoto (Jun 5, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Could you please send me their contact info? There is a place in Michigan that can rebuild these lenses including the AF motors.


----------



## MaherGT86 (Sep 5, 2022)

I love the Canon 200mm f1.8 I have been using it with my Canon R5 and it works perfectly! 






500px







500px.com












New item by Maher Ibrahim







photos.app.goo.gl












New item by Maher Ibrahim







photos.app.goo.gl












New item by Maher Ibrahim







photos.app.goo.gl


----------

