# which 200mm lens to get



## Patak (Feb 20, 2015)

Hello everyone,

i am planing to obtain a 200mm lens and looking into various options. i would use the lens mostly for outdoors, portraits, sport, kids playing etc. i was looking into 200mm F2.8 L which is very similar to 135 f2 L. The only problem for me would be lack of IS with this focal length. Second choice would be one of 70-200mm, preferably f2.8 IS II. however my issue with this lens would be size/weight and not really being as "special" as my 135L. My ultimate choice would be 200mm F2 L. For the quality of shots i would forgive the size/weight factor, but price would be an issue and would need a bit more time to gather $$$. I already have 70-300 L and do not use it much since it does not produce the same "feel" as 135L

What is your experience with lenses mentioned above and how would you compare them?

thankfully,


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 20, 2015)

I would love the 200 f/2 but it might be a hassle/burdon to bust out all the time and a tripod/monopod is definitely needed as well. All your other lenses are hand holdable and so is the 70-200. But if you have the means to own such a special lens, id get it. You get a look you simply can't get with any other lens. Same can be said of the 85L and 135L but they are far more affordable


----------



## dancook (Feb 20, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> I would love the 200 f/2 but it might be a hassle/burdon to bust out all the time and a tripod/monopod is definitely needed as well. All your other lenses are hand holdable and so is the 70-200. But if you have the means to own such a special lens, id get it. You get a look you simply can't get with any other lens. Same can be said of the 85L and 135L but they are far more affordable



200mm f2 is hand holdable depending on the person, I use it for street photography sometimes.

Nice to crack it out at weddings too 








I generally use 35mm, 85mm 1.2, and 200mm f2 - I have a 135mm f2 and the only reason I dont sell it, is just in case I need that FL.. which isn't often.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 20, 2015)

Patak said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> however my issue with this lens would be size/weight and not really being as "special" as my 135L. My ultimate choice would be 200mm F2 L.
> 
> thankfully,


Looking at your list, actually, to me you miss the most special (85 1.2) so I assume that "special" thing is more a personal taste.
Both 200mm f2.0 and 2.8 are "special" in my taste, but different "special". I rent the 2.0 occasionally because I cannot afford it, and the 2.8 became my second best after the 85 1.2, because of the "special" thing. I don't use my 135 that much.
If you are shooting something moving, unless you pan, you won't really need an IS and you have already the 135 so the main difference is just the focal length and at 200mm 2.8 is special (at least to me).
My suggestion is rent each one of them and then decide, because to me you are the only who can take the decision. 
I use prime, mainly, and I went for the 100-400 II for my zoom. Big, but worth it. I got it two weeks ago and haven't stop playing with it yet.


----------



## luckydude (Feb 20, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> I would love the 200 f/2 but it might be a hassle/burdon to bust out all the time and a tripod/monopod is definitely needed as well. All your other lenses are hand holdable and so is the 70-200. But if you have the means to own such a special lens, id get it. You get a look you simply can't get with any other lens. Same can be said of the 85L and 135L but they are far more affordable



I hand hold the 200mm f2 all the time but for long periods of time I use a monopod. I got hired to shoot hockey pics (I'm not a pro but they thought I was good enough).

These are a bunch of head shots/close ups for human interest:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/daryn

These are of the games:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2015-winter-classic/

I *love* that lens. It's the one expensive lens that I think is worth every penny. Next favorite is 400mm DO I (I've got a good copy but want to upgrade to the II). The expensive lens I like the least is the 600mm f4 II. Nice glass, so heavy that you have to dedicate time to shooting, it is not a grab and run lens. The 400mm w/ 1.4x on it sees far more use, you can hand hold that one.


----------



## dstppy (Feb 20, 2015)

Though I lust for the 2.0, at ~$5k used, my 2.8 seems like a super duper deal . . .


----------



## Perio (Feb 20, 2015)

Pick up 70-200 2.8ii. I have 200 2.0 and even though it's a fantastic lens, 70-200 2.8ii is more practical and versatile. 

Also, if you're planning to shoot playing kids or sport, IS may not be that practical.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 20, 2015)

The EF 200/2.8 USM II is a bargain. It is small, light, pretty sharp, AF is fast, bokeh is fine. You should rent it and use it for some days to decide wether you like it or not. With the 70D it gives me an acceptable reach for many situations. Hand holding 200mm without IS can be critical, if you are not used to it. I have a Mini-Stativ wich serves as an "Shoulder Camera Support". This is ok. 

The other lenses (180 Macro; 70-200/2.8 II; 200/2) are better, but they are much more expensive. So the little 200/2.8 is the choice for the "poor people", wich means for nearly everbody. 

Andy


----------



## Frodo (Feb 20, 2015)

For me size is a big deal as I travel a lot.
My travel kit is 5D II plus 35/2 IS and 200/2.8 plus 270EX flash. All this fits nicely in a Crumpler "4 Million Dollar Home" bag, which is a small bag. I used to travel with the 85/1.8, but like the extra reach of the 200. I have a metal screw in lens hood for the 200 that fits nicely over the mount end of the lens when not in use. The original lens hood is huge. I previously had a 70-200/4 and there's no way that would fit in my current bag. It does fit in my "5 Million Dollar Home" but that bag is significantly bigger.
The 200 is sharp and flare resistant. It takes the 1.4x nicely to give a 280/4.
The 70-200/2.8 is too big for my needs and the 200/2 is also way too expensive.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 20, 2015)

I've had them all and really liked all of them, but as special goes, the f2 is just on another level. I bring it everywhere, never used any legs for it except my own. And I have inflamed joints and haven't worked out in 20 years, lol.

80% of my favorite shots are from the 200. The one lens I will never ever sell.


----------



## Patak (Feb 20, 2015)

thank you all for your replies. My idea is to mosly hand-hold this lens. this is why the IS is essential to me with this focal lenght. i tried my 135L on my 7D (becomes 216mm) and the view was shaking quite a bit, which i am not use to. I appriciate 200mm f2.8L with respect to size, apature and optical quality, but i just cannot see using it if i cannot frame things properly.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Feb 21, 2015)

My 200mm F/2.8 II might be my favorite lens, it is super light weight, affordable, sharp and has incredible bokeh. It's just a lens to do it all, it even autofocuses fast on my 5d mkii!



IMG_1741-2 by Andy Hodapp, on Flickr



Hawaiian Nene Goose by Andy Hodapp, on Flickr



House Rock by Andy Hodapp, on Flickr



Barn Owl on Snowy Day by Andy Hodapp, on Flickr



IMG_8904 by Andy Hodapp, on Flickr



Water Dump by Andy Hodapp, on Flickr


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 21, 2015)

Patak said:


> thank you all for your replies. My idea is to mosly hand-hold this lens. this is why the IS is essential to me with this focal lenght. i tried my 135L on my 7D (becomes 216mm) and the view was shaking quite a bit, which i am not use to. I appriciate 200mm f2.8L with respect to size, apature and optical quality, but i just cannot see using it if i cannot frame things properly.




It seems like you have all the good reasons (portraits, sports, "look") to buy the 200/2L. Given that situation, I don't see anyone regretting after having bought the lens. Especially since you are willing to save up for it.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Feb 24, 2015)

I sold the 200mm f/2L IS, but had to buy it again. Love the lens.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 8, 2015)

Patak said:


> thank you all for your replies. My idea is to mosly hand-hold this lens. this is why the IS is essential to me with this focal lenght. i tried my 135L on my 7D (becomes 216mm) and the view was shaking quite a bit, which i am not use to. I appriciate 200mm f2.8L with respect to size, apature and optical quality, but i just cannot see using it if i cannot frame things properly.



I have had all three: 200/2L IS 200/2,8 II and 70-200/2,8L IS II and my advice is: buy the 70-200 II. It has IS and it has better contrast than the 200/2,8. The zoom is very sharp and it is actually very difficult to see any difference from the 200/2 IS in terms of sharpness. The zoom is very easy to hand hold, especially with a camera with battery grip, and much lighter than the 200/2 IS.

You said in your post that you don't feel the zoom is as special as the 200/2,8.... That´s nonsence! The reality is the opposite: The zoom is sharper and better in every way, especially since you are going to hand hold the lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 9, 2015)

If budget is not an issue, 200mm f2 IS will blow you away. I used to shoot with 70-200mm f2.8 IS II a lot, until my 200mm f2 IS arrived. I'm Asian, I have problem shooting with 1Dx + 200mm f2 IS II. The background blur/bokeh @ f2 will melt the f2.8


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 9, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm Asian, I have problem shooting with 1Dx + 200mm f2 IS II.



Nice shot as always... but I'm guessing your autocorrect decided to make an appearance. What does being Asian and shooting with the 1dx and 200 combo have to do with each other?


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 9, 2015)

OH... and to answer the question... I vote on the 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii... it is very sharp wide open and when shooting moving targets, i.e. kids and sports... having the ability to zoom is quite helpful. I was playing around with shooting hockey with the 135L and f/2 is nice... but being able to frame a player is nicer. Especially when they come in close... I can handle if they are a bit far and I have to crop into the image... but if they come in close... I can't zoom out... and I wind up chopping off good action. 

So there's that. Also... I like my 135L... but I find it hard to love... I love my 85L mkii... and I love my 70-200 as a 2nd wife that doesn't know about the first... but I'm still getting to learn to love the 135L.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Mar 9, 2015)

Might want to consider selling the 70-300L and 135L, and picking up the 85mm f/1.2L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. That might fill some holes in the lineup. Then add a 200mm f/2L IS later on. But you couldn't be faulted for heading straight for the 200mm f/2L!!!


----------



## WhoIreland (Mar 9, 2015)

a few people here seem to be steering you towards a 85L ii

I had 70-200 2,8IS which i never really loved - it just served a focal length purpose.
ended up using 85L ii where possible

however,when i upgraded to 70-200 2.8IS mk2 it was like a light came on - superb
so much so that the 85L started to gather dust...after almost 2yrs of non use i sold the 85
main reason was,although it's fantastic when nailed correctly,I found it useless with kids and events due to autofocus issues. i was losing waaaay too many shots

i then ended up buying a 135L for easy carry and that sweet f2 bokeh
I miss the 85 at times, but it's very frustrating lens depending on your use

you wouldnt regret the 70-200mk2 and it's resale value holds exceptionally well

200F2 holds value too, but could take you a while to sell if the time came


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm Asian, I have problem shooting with 1Dx + 200mm f2 IS II.
> ...



I was trying to say weight and handling on 1dx + 200mm f2 IS hand held. I'm asian 5'7", 165lbs ;D


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 10, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I can't remember the last time I was 165... might have been in junior high... which is also the last time I was 5'7"... The first figure grew much more than the 2nd... to my dismay and chagrin.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 10, 2015)

The 200/2 is hand holdable for sure. I hiked through 3 km of deep snow with it slung over my shoulder.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 10, 2015)

Daniel Flather said:


> The 200/2 is hand holdable for sure. I hiked through 3 km of deep snow with it slung over my shoulder.



I can agree a bit with that. I tried the 300 f2.8 IS I with the standard neck strap , once! Impossible for more than 6 minutes. But I carry the 200 either in a lens case from Lowepro or in a Black Rapid strap and I really don't find it heavy anymore. But if you're carrying a lot of other gear and then the 200 on top of that, you wish you'd brought a 70-200 f4 or the 135 L.

But see here's the tip, leave the other [email protected] at home and you're good, I mean, who needs a tent and sleeping bag right?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 10, 2015)

Patak said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> i am planing to obtain a 200mm lens and looking into various options. i would use the lens mostly for outdoors, portraits, sport, kids playing etc. i was looking into 200mm F2.8 L which is very similar to 135 f2 L. The only problem for me would be lack of IS with this focal length. Second choice would be one of 70-200mm, preferably f2.8 IS II. however my issue with this lens would be size/weight and not really being as "special" as my 135L. My ultimate choice would be 200mm F2 L. For the quality of shots i would forgive the size/weight factor, but price would be an issue and would need a bit more time to gather $$$. I already have 70-300 L and do not use it much since it does not produce the same "feel" as 135L
> 
> ...


----------



## tculotta (Mar 10, 2015)

It's not quite 200, but the Sigma 180 f/2.8 macro is a very sharp lens, although it is a little on the heavy side.


----------



## gary samples (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't want to start a fight !
to Me there's only 200. the f/2.0 it's my go to len wildlife 600mm 
indoors 24/70ll & 85/1.2


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I'm well aware of that siutation myself ;D

I was in that situation back few years back, then decided to be on selective eating path. Plus, taking a walk 30-40mins each day with 1Dx+400mm f2.8 IS II combo HELPs ALOT ;D ;D ;D


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> If budget is not an issue, 200mm f2 IS will blow you away. I used to shoot with 70-200mm f2.8 IS II a lot, until my 200mm f2 IS arrived. I'm Asian, I have problem shooting with 1Dx + 200mm f2 IS II. The background blur/bokeh @ f2 will melt the f2.8



I really... Really like this photo. I'm usually quite mum on photos I think are boring... and usually I'm only marginally enthusiastic about images I like.. But this... I really like this. Kudos.


----------



## camerandrew (Mar 11, 2015)

I have had the 200 2.8L for a few years now. I have had really good results with it, bokeh is good wide open and it is a very sharp lens. I like that it does not draw (sometimes unwanted) attention by the fact that it is not white. I was concerned about the fact that it did not have IS, however, after using it a few times, and working on technique, I have had relatively little issue with motion blur do to lens movement.


----------



## Viper28 (Mar 11, 2015)

I've had the 200/2.8L II for 6 or 7 years and love it. Its small and light making it a ideal travel lens and not being white is discreet. Takes a 1.4x TC well. I've used it for everything from indoor portraits, to wildlife and aircraft. Yes IS would be nice but I can work around it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 12, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > If budget is not an issue, 200mm f2 IS will blow you away. I used to shoot with 70-200mm f2.8 IS II a lot, until my 200mm f2 IS arrived. I'm Asian, I have problem shooting with 1Dx + 200mm f2 IS II. The background blur/bokeh @ f2 will melt the f2.8
> ...



Thanks JD. Just like your 85L II, shoot it wide open  

I'm currently shooting with Sony a7s + native 55mm. Love the size, weight and high ISO, however, I start missing my Canon 24-70 & 70-200. The home insurance Company and I have reached final value for the lost items from recent break-in. I'm few weeks away getting the check. Decision, decision and more decision.... :


----------



## yorgasor (Mar 12, 2015)

Just another suggestion, although I don't know that it would be a great solution for action/sports. Today I just got a beautiful old Nikon 200mm f/2 AI lens. I got it from keh.com for about $1400. I'm just breaking it in, but it's a much cheaper solution to get into the big glass field, and with an adapter it works great on Canon cameras. I've been using a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AIS lens for the past year on my Canon 5D III and I've taken some wonderful photos. It's a little trickier to get action in focus, so you end up taking lots of photos just to make sure. I'll mostly be using it on my Nikon D3s that has modded with a Canon split prism screen to help with manual focus lenses and it does wonderful there. The 5D3 w/ Magic Lantern also does a fabulous job with MF lenses.


----------



## Famateur (Mar 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> The home insurance Company and I have reached final value for the lost items from recent break-in. I'm few weeks away getting the check. Decision, decision and more decision.... :



That's fantastic news, Dylan. Glad to hear the insurance is going to come through to some level. Yep...decisions. I think mine would go like this:

1. Alarm System
2. Bolted Down Safe
3. Mmmm... lenses.


----------



## ChristopherM (Mar 12, 2015)

I personally love the 200 f2. And it is most definitely hand-holdable.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 12, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > The home insurance Company and I have reached final value for the lost items from recent break-in. I'm few weeks away getting the check. Decision, decision and more decision.... :
> ...



I took care the first two. For me, it's more like half FF mirrorless & half DSLR or all DSLR


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 12, 2015)

ChristopherM said:


> I personally love the 200 f2. And it is most definitely hand-holdable.



I really like the 2nd shot - great action


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 12, 2015)

It annoys me that the 200 f2 kicks the crap out of my 135L.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 13, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> It annoys me that the 200 f2 kicks the crap out of my 135L.



How are the used prices where you live? I saw one here for half off ! And it was mint and only two years old. They are hard to sell used. Mine also was a steal.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 13, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> It annoys me that the 200 f2 kicks the crap out of my 135L.



My .02: The sharpness on 135L is a bit harsh - great for shooting products and landscape etc...

85L II and 200mm f2 IS give smoother(more dreamy look) sharpness on people.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 13, 2015)

The Mamiaya 200 f/2.8 APO has some very good reviews and you get focus confirmation with the right adapter. 

Only downsides seem to be that it is front heavy and there is no tripod collar.

There are numerous anecdotes about medium format lenses having a more pleasing rendering than their 35mm counterparts.


----------



## pulseimages (Mar 20, 2015)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> My 200mm F/2.8 II might be my favorite lens, it is super light weight, affordable, sharp and has incredible bokeh. It's just a lens to do it all, it even autofocuses fast on my 5d mkii!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent images! Were the horse and mountain goat images made hand held?


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Mar 20, 2015)

pulseimages said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > My 200mm F/2.8 II might be my favorite lens, it is super light weight, affordable, sharp and has incredible bokeh. It's just a lens to do it all, it even autofocuses fast on my 5d mkii!
> ...



Yep! I found it really easy to get used to hand holding the lens. Its not that heavy and is very compact.


----------



## pulseimages (Mar 22, 2015)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > Andy_Hodapp said:
> ...



Do you use a battery grip on your 5D Mark II when using your Canon 200 2.8L II hand held?


----------



## Ruined (Mar 22, 2015)

Patak said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> i am planing to obtain a 200mm lens and looking into various options. i would use the lens mostly for outdoors, portraits, sport, kids playing etc. i was looking into 200mm F2.8 L which is very similar to 135 f2 L. The only problem for me would be lack of IS with this focal length. Second choice would be one of 70-200mm, preferably f2.8 IS II. however my issue with this lens would be size/weight and not really being as "special" as my 135L. My ultimate choice would be 200mm F2 L. For the quality of shots i would forgive the size/weight factor, but price would be an issue and would need a bit more time to gather $$$. I already have 70-300 L and do not use it much since it does not produce the same "feel" as 135L
> 
> ...



70-200 IS II makes most sense. Unless you plan to use a tripod all the time 200mm is a very long FL to hand hold without IS in anything but the best light. And the 200 f/2 is $$$$$.


----------



## lintoni (Mar 28, 2015)

Perio posted this link elsewhere on.CR - Lens. Rentals take on the 200s

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/03/just-the-lenses-the-great-200mm-shoot-out


----------



## Patak (Mar 28, 2015)

thank you all for your advice. i will be waiting for the new prime lens in this focal length category. something similar to what Nikon showed with the new 300mm VR lens


----------

