# Talk Me Out Or Into It Please - 200mm F2L



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 10, 2015)

Been mulling over it for several years now and have always talked myself off the ledge. Key facts:

- Serious hobbyist/don't like shooting for money
- love 200mm FL
- primary subjects are my two children (2 and 8)
- already had the 135/loved but sold 
- had the 100 but didn't use it enough/sold
- currently still have the 85II, 70-200II and Fuji rig with 85/1.2 equiv.
- All three mentioned above get regular usage

Will I honestly notice the magic over the things I already have? lol

I'm sure I'm not the first person to post or ask about this thing. But I'm on the ledge again (and probably the closest I've been) to pulling the trigger....and soon.


----------



## Light Sculptor (Apr 10, 2015)

I own it. It is one of the best lenses that I have ever used, and I adore it. I have used the 1.8 too, and although the bokeh is even better on it, there is the worry of repair should it break, and the lack of IS, which can be an issue in low light (depending on how you shoot). If you have the money and you are the kind of person who shoots wide open in low light, then it is great.

One thing I would say is that at f2 DOF is very low, and in very low light if your camera body is not up to it, you might be manually focussing. I shoot in the extremes of light, and so this might not be an issue for you.


----------



## Light Sculptor (Apr 10, 2015)

I think some lenses have a magic to them, or more literally, special qualities that result in consistently top images. Something extra than just being a very good lens. It doesn't mean that you will get great images all of the time, or that they are the lens for every occasion, but with the right subject, and lighting they will bring some thing extra to the table. The 85mm 1.2 is one such lens. The 200mm f2.0 is another. The 70-200 2.8 is not. The 70-200 is a great, and very practical lens, especially for event shooting, but in my opinion it doesn't have that little extra magic, that the 2.0 does. For some occasions I will not consider the 2.0 and will take the 70-200 2.8, it is simply the better choice for what I am doing.


----------



## eli72 (Apr 10, 2015)

I love the 200 f2, and it does have a magical quality to it. However, I find it difficult to shoot my 6-year old grandson with it because he's always moving closer and farther away, so the 70-200 becomes a much more effective lens since I can zoom to keep him in the frame without cutting off parts of his body. If I can find him when he's playing in a particular spot and not running around, the 200 becomes my favorite.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 10, 2015)

Excellent when you pair up with 24-70 on another body - close up shots are SUPER, prodcues very thin DOF. Otherwise, stay with 85L II and your current setup.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 10, 2015)

After seeing what Lensrentals did with the 200mm testing and comparison recently, it set me up for another internal struggle. lol

My main concern is whether or not I'll struggle with being fixed at 200 and how that will affect my frequency of usage/utility. I'm largely going to be shooting in the same scenarios as you, Dylan.


----------



## Besisika (Apr 10, 2015)

If I was rich I would have bought it. The best lens I have ever used.
For full body, vertical portrait shot, nothing can replace it.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 10, 2015)

I've been thinking about it too, but for a different use (stopping action in poorly lit venues). 

It seems to be a very specialized lens - can't really think of any other major uses. I guess those that do a lot of long-range portraits might find it useful too.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 10, 2015)

I hear that it is almost as good as the 200 f/1.8... so step back from the ledge a bit.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2015)

Act444 said:


> I've been thinking about it too, but for a different use (stopping action in poorly lit venues).
> 
> It seems to be a very specialized lens - can't really think of any other major uses. I guess those that do a lot of long-range portraits might find it useful too.


I think indoor sports and head shots / distant portraits (esp. for fashion) are the two primary reasons to buy one. I'm not saying there aren't other uses, but anyone who does a lot of work in one or both of those areas will likely find this lens to be a good investment.


----------



## Pookie (Apr 10, 2015)

I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.

Take a look at Dylan's photo, cute kids but do you need a 200 f/2 to capture that image. Nope. That money would be better used in a college savings account for those children. Or perhaps even basic photography classes so that you know how to compose an image properly... and then make money with client work. 

If you're interested in bragging right on CR forums then by all means, get one and pet it while you call it precious. Mention it when anyone starts a thread on 200 FL. I love the forum comments, "yea, the 70-200 is great but the 200 f/2 is the way to go!!!". 

If you're making loads of money with client work, then yes it's a great lens and might add something to your assets. Might, again I say, the 85L and 135L are just as kick ass and for a fraction of the cost will do practically the same thing. Even the 70-200 can produce a good thin DOF if you know how to use it.

If you're Jonesing for the 200mm f/2 just because it's the "200mm f/2"... save your cash and look elsewhere.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 10, 2015)

Pookie said:


> I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.
> 
> Take a look at Dylan's photo, cute kids but do you need a 200 f/2 to capture that image. Nope. That money would be better used in a college savings account for those children. Or perhaps even basic photography classes so that you know how to compose an image properly... and then make money with client work.
> 
> ...



Pookie,
You have any kids? or maybe done any kid photograhy sessions? Your lighting works with models are wonderful. I would love to see some your light works with active kids - hopefully be able to pickup few tricks from it.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 10, 2015)

Pookie said:


> I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.
> 
> Take a look at Dylan's photo, cute kids but do you need a 200 f/2 to capture that image. Nope. That money would be better used in a college savings account for those children. Or perhaps even basic photography classes so that you know how to compose an image properly... and then make money with client work.
> 
> ...



All things I agree with you on. Definitely not trying to own it to brag about it on CR as I have plenty of other lenses that would allow me to oogle with others about. Petting it though on the other hand is something I think I would like to partake in. 

My curiousity and hope primarily lies in the fact that I do do a lot of distant environmental portrait/action type stuff of my kids and thought I might get that extra umph and sharpness wide open that you don't get with the 85. While I get plenty of separation with the 85 and am very happy with it, I fantasize about the extra resolution, sharpness, focus speed, accuracy, and IS of the 200.

Based on what you're saying though, if I'm not getting much more than the 85 has to offer as far as "look" goes, then I will happily save my gouda for something else.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 10, 2015)

Some recent examples of what I very commonly shoot. These were with the Fuji 56/1.2. 

I am very pleased with both the Canon results with the 85II and the Fuji. Which is precisely what causes me to be ever so curious about the 200 since it should theoretically be even more pleasing, right? lol


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 10, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Based on what you're saying though, if I'm not getting much more than the 85 has to offer as far as "look" goes, then I will happily save my gouda for something else.



Why not rent one (200) and try it, or if you are a CPS member, try one on loan.

That would be the easiest way to see if the 200 gives you what you are looking for over the 85.

I suppose that you already know that the 200 is razor sharp wide open and the 85 is not (not that that is a bad thing- just different).


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 10, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> I suppose that you already know that the 200 is razor sharp wide open and the 85 is not (not that that is a bad thing- just different).
> Why not rent one (200) and try it, or if you are a CPS member, try one on loan.
> That would be the easiest way to see if the 200 gives you what you are looking for over the 85.



Thought about rental but I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to things like that. So a few hundred bucks was out of the question as I would have rather just chipped it into the fund to buy it. lol.

Cancelled CPS a while back as it wasn't necessary for my user level and I wasn't getting any return on the price of admission.

And you are correct. That is the main allure of the 200 for me is that utter sharpness and resolution when shot wide open when compared with the 85. I know I can always play with distances to get similar overall looks. But the sharpness and resolution are what they are respectively. The perspective of the 200 is also something I love (or compression as some refer to it as). 

I am also aware that some people think you might as well go with the 300 for sheer resolution and subject/background isolation. I personally like the 200 FL since it is still usable for more things as I'm not always at a great distance from my subjects.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 10, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Thought about rental but I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to things like that. So a few hundred bucks was out of the question as I would have rather just chipped it into the fund to buy it. lol.
> 
> Cancelled CPS a while back as it wasn't necessary for my user level and I wasn't getting any return on the price of admission.



Well, renting one is more expensive than getting one on loan (free) with the $100 CPS membership... that seems worthwhile.

Paying to rent one is significantly less expensive than buying one to try it.

There is a fine line between being a cheap bastard and foolish...  ;D


----------



## Dantana (Apr 10, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> After seeing what Lensrentals did with the 200mm testing and comparison recently, it set me up for another internal struggle. lol
> 
> My main concern is whether or not I'll struggle with being fixed at 200 and how that will affect my frequency of usage/utility. I'm largely going to be shooting in the same scenarios as you, Dylan.



Maybe you could put a piece of gaffers tape on your 70-200 for a day and see how using just that FL affects your shooting. I know it won't show you what the images would look like out of the 2.0, but it would give you a feel for shooting at only 200.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 10, 2015)

Dantana said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > After seeing what Lensrentals did with the 200mm testing and comparison recently, it set me up for another internal struggle. lol
> ...



A splendid idea indeed. Might just do that this evening.


----------



## Perio (Apr 10, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Been mulling over it for several years now and have always talked myself off the ledge. Key facts:
> 
> - Serious hobbyist/don't like shooting for money
> - love 200mm FL
> ...



I have 85 1.2, 70-200 2.8ii, 100L and 200L. Honestly, even though 200L is an amazing lens, I'd save $5-6k and skip 200L. 70-200 ii is an amazing lens and is very versatile. 85 1.2 is a unique lens as well. I also had 135L and it's an amazing lens too.


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 11, 2015)

Hmm, I think what I need to do is talk you into buying this lens for me


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 11, 2015)

Probably not what you want to hear but... If you have to ask, you don't need it. Take your family someplace nice for a vacation instead and photograph the trip with the gear you already have. My take.


----------



## sanj (Apr 11, 2015)

You mainly shoot your kids? 
Don't bother with the lens IMHO.


----------



## anthonyd (Apr 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Excellent when you pair up with 24-70 on another body - close up shots are SUPER, prodcues very thin DOF. Otherwise, stay with 85L II and your current setup.



Dylan, you fit two kids in a picture shot with a 200mm? How far away were you? Amazing shot by the way (although I'd crop a little tighter to remove the bucket).


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 11, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent when you pair up with 24-70 on another body - close up shots are SUPER, prodcues very thin DOF. Otherwise, stay with 85L II and your current setup.
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 11, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Dantana said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



That's good suggestion. 

John, try to shoot 50mm fl with it. I find 50mm and 200mm combo works quite well, although, the 24-70 will give more flexibility. Having to own both 70-200 f2.8 IS II and 200f2, I still prefer 200f2 for close-up shots.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> You mainly shoot your kids?
> Don't bother with the lens IMHO.



Why not?

I'm building my gear to fit my kids activities. I prefer to own decent lenses and photograph my kids activities myself. Besides that, a dream to take a safari trip like you is still in my bucket list


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 11, 2015)

I want to go halfsies on the lens. Heck, thirdsies works for me as well.


----------



## Pookie (Apr 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.
> ...



Two boys... I take more photos of them than I do models... Client work with children does not get posted and is only for the client (mainly youth league soccer/baseball and family portraits). My youngest child is just starting to walk, so there will be action shots of him in a few months 

If you're thinking of a Safari in the future... unfort the 200 is going to fall far short of need. I rent a 300 and a 400 occasionally and often feel very FL limited. I'm sure there are a few members here that are far more knowledgable than I on Safari's than I but I def think you would encounter the same limitations. 













[url=https://flic.kr/p/qty1kw]


----------



## Pookie (Apr 12, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.
> ...



Well, I did pet mine for a few weeks. Just trying to be the voice of reason here. Not saying don't buy it but... also saying you'll get just about everything you want in smaller packages (easier with chasing kids) with lenses you already own. Hell, throw in a used 135L and go to Fiji with the fam with the money you'll save. I think you would be hard pressed to tell a good 135 shot from 200, you might but is it really worth 6K.

The other thing about carrying a 200, hell even the 70-200, as a dad (see above) chasing my 3 year old while my wife extracts my 14 month old from the car is a major PITA. Imagine dangling 6k plus as you move about... dinging the car door, your lenses, your camera. I've owned the 200 for about 4 years and after 2 trips out with it I soon realized it would be staying home the majority of the time (and that was even before kids).


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 12, 2015)

Pookie said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...


Very cute. 

Just too many memories for us to capture 

85L II





or

200f2


----------



## Viggo (Apr 12, 2015)

It's the one lens I will never ever sell. It gives a magic look and feel to every subject I point it too. Tried pretty much every ef lens from 300mm and down, and it's by far my favorite.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Apr 12, 2015)

The 200L is my favorite lens. However, given what you have, and the type of shooting you do, it may be overkill. I don't see a 24-70 listed, and version 2 is awesome, I might add that one first. And like some have suggested, might want to rent it or get a CPS loaner to check out. If you buy a 200L used, it will likely keep it's value. Can always buy and resell later....


----------



## Viggo (Apr 13, 2015)

If where you live is anything like here, the worst investment you can make with photogear is buying a new 200 f2 if you're not 110% you'll never sell. They absolutely won't sell used, I've seen only a few here sold used, and they were half off. Not seen that any other Canon lens.

That of course means it's the bargain like no other if you buy one used ;D


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 13, 2015)

Off the ledge for now. LOL. 

Viggo - Wish I could get one of those used half off deals.

Hawaii - I had the 24-70II but traded it for the xt1, 56, and kit zoom last year. Ended up picking up the tamron VC a couple months later. Never use that one for stills though.


----------

