# Review - Canon EF 200 f/2L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 9, 2012)

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 200 f/2L IS


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 9, 2012)

and where i find this review? i don´t see it...


----------



## Joseph M (Oct 9, 2012)

It's at the top bar on the main page Canon-F1 

I'd really like to see a review for the 135L, 85L II, and the 50L. I love how these reviews go, Thanks CR guy ;D


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 9, 2012)

Joseph M said:


> It's at the top bar on the main page Canon-F1
> 
> I'd really like to see a review for the 135L, 85L II, and the 50L. I love how these reviews go, Thanks CR guy ;D



yes i saw it then.. i looked under "reviews" -- stupid me.


----------



## M.ST (Oct 9, 2012)

I like the EF 200 f/2 L IS lens. It´s one of my favorite lenses too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

Great review, to the point, capures the 'feel' of the lens.

This one is on my list of 'wants', along with the 300/2.8 II. Owning one supertele makes me want more!


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

Craig,
I added the "Lens Review" page in my favorite. LOve the reviews


----------



## Jamesy (Oct 9, 2012)

Craig (CR Guy), Nice shot of 'Little CR Guy' - I recall seeing this in the store in Owen Sound - really nice 16x20 print!

What are your other two favourite lenses? I dream of owning this one day...


----------



## dolina (Oct 9, 2012)

Craig there's a Lens Gallery thread for the 200/2.0 that you may want to link to.

The image quality, one f-stop advantage, 5-stop of IS and ability to separate subject from background makes this my favorite lens.

My complaint is that Canon did not make this a f/1.8 like the discontinued 200/1.8 (1989-2004).

Some may argue that 5-stop of IS would make up for the 1/3rd f-stop light loss but IS does not allow more light in to stop subject motion.


----------



## vintagedan23 (Oct 9, 2012)

I noticed a typo in the review. Look at the very top you have "Review – Canon EF 200 f/2L IS" then right underneath you have "Review – Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II (Tilt-Shift)"

Or maybe it was intended to be that way?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 9, 2012)

The 200/2 is therapeutic.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> This one is on my list of 'wants', along with the 300/2.8 II. Owning one supertele makes me want more!



And I would like to thank you for your personal efforts to stimulate the global consumer economy in these distressed times.


----------



## BrettS (Oct 10, 2012)

Loved the review. Thank you!


----------



## eli72 (Oct 10, 2012)

If you have one of these lenses (or even any of the other Canon L long telephotos), I highly recommend the lens caps made by Don Zeck (http://www.donzecklenscap.com/) over the bulky "bag" lens caps that Canon provides with them. They are easy to install and remove, and will protect the front element in case you decide that you don't want to use the lens shade.
I've been very happy with this lens, and I also find it very useful in shooting pictures of my grandson because I can get farther away from him so he's not as conscious of my taking his picture.
1Ds Mk III, 1/640 @f3.2, ISO 250


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 10, 2012)

*sigh* One of the lenses that I can only dream of holding one day, much less owning.

@eli72: Those look pretty nice, and quite reasonably priced as well. I bet you could make one using any of the home 3-D printers as well, although that's a lot more work. Cost a lot more if you don't already have the printer, for sure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2012)

eli72 said:


> If you have one of these lenses (or even any of the other Canon L long telephotos)...the bulky "bag" lens caps that Canon provides with them.



The MkII superteles have a redesigned nylon cap with a velcro closure that's much easier to install and remove.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 10, 2012)

The 200mm F/2 is teh best portrait lens ever made. ;D


----------



## eli72 (Oct 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> eli72 said:
> 
> 
> > If you have one of these lenses (or even any of the other Canon L long telephotos)...the bulky "bag" lens caps that Canon provides with them.
> ...



Haven't made that big a step yet!


----------



## dpollitt (Oct 10, 2012)

I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of _tea _ :

Please, keep them a bit *more* technical!


----------



## Joseph M (Oct 10, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of _tea _ :
> 
> Please, keep them a bit *more* technical!



I'm pretty sure the lens mug was there to give the viewers an idea on how it the reviewed lens looks like against the 70-200 f4L (which is the lens mug).


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 10, 2012)

to address the lens cap issue lens coat make really nice neoprene slip on covers for superteles that are lightweight and tough, I have one on my 600 and its awesome. also they are reasonably priced too.

http://www.lenscoat.com/hoodie-lens-caps-c-5.html


----------



## JVLphoto (Oct 11, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of _tea _ :
> 
> Please, keep them a bit *more* technical!



Sorry, I thought it would be funny (and seeing as I only own the one equivalent tele for comparison... feel free to crop that part out with your imagination).


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Oct 11, 2012)

JVLphoto said:


> dpollitt said:
> 
> 
> > I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of _tea _ :
> ...



Well, _I_ appreciated the joke. And I _still_ want one of those mugs! It's a shame Canon only made them as a one-off for that one show.

On the subject of the lens...I'm sure I'd absolutely love to have one, but I'm also struck by the trend towards slower and slower lenses, even in the top-of-the-line gear.

The previous incarnation of this lens was f/1.8. Yes, f/2 is still wicked fast for a 200mm lens, but it sure would have been nice to have seen it stay at f/1.8 -- or even go the extra half-stop the other direction to f/1.4! Sure, it'd make a big-and-heavy-and-expensive lens bigger and heavier and more expensive...but I bet most people willing to put up with the size, weight, and cost of this lens would gladly give up a bit more size, weight, and money for that extra stop.

It's not just the 200 that's going backwards. The top-of-the-line 50 today is only f/1.2. It used to be f/1.0, and Canon even made an f/0.95. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next L 50 is f/1.4.

The new Great White is the 200-400 -- but it's only f/4, and slows all the way down to f/5.6 when you use the teleconverter. I'm sorry, but a 280 f/5.6 lens is hardly impressive, even if it's got great image quality. (Yes, yes -- you'd shoot at 280 without the TC engaged...but, still.)

Canon is doing some amazing things in reducing the weight of the Great Whites. They're currently investing the dividends of that research in giving us the same lenses at lower weights, and that's a good thing. I'd also like to see them keep the weight the same as before but offer that much more lens for the same weight.

Who's up for a 12-pound 400mm f/1.8?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## drummstikk (Oct 11, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> The previous incarnation of this lens was f/1.8. Yes, f/2 is still wicked fast for a 200mm lens, but it sure would have been nice to have seen it stay at f/1.8 -- or even go the extra half-stop the other direction to f/1.4! Sure, it'd make a big-and-heavy-and-expensive lens bigger and heavier and more expensive...but I bet most people willing to put up with the size, weight, and cost of this lens would gladly give up a bit more size, weight, and money for that extra stop.



The size weight and money expenditure of going to a 200mm 1.4 would be more than just a "bit." (Also, going from f/1.8 to 1.4 is 2/3 stop, not 1/2.) I presume the front element on such a lens would be roughly the same diameter as a 400mm f/2.8, and I don't even want to speculate on the weight. Way too much bulk for 200mm reach, in my view.

I know others, especially portrait folks, like to take shallow depth of field to the extreme, but for me, apertures larger than f/2.8 aren't really for actually shooting photos, but for easier manual focus. Sure, I'd gladly use a 200mm f/2.0, as it would make my hand and eye a manual focusing machine, but I would only actually use f/2.0 in extreme low-light circumstances. (I owned a Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 back in my Nikon days in the '80's -- great for night football on a dingy high school field with Tri-X film pushed to 3200.)



TrumpetPower! said:


> It's not just the 200 that's going backwards. The top-of-the-line 50 today is only f/1.2. It used to be f/1.0, and Canon even made an f/0.95. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next L 50 is f/1.4.



The f/0.95, I believe, was an old rangefinder camera lens, and no such lens was ever in the EF lineup, or even in the FD lens range as far as I know. The EF 50mm f/1.0 seems most likely to have been a "look what we can do!" kind of lens for Canon, more for their P.R. than for any practical use by working photographers. I'm sure I have NEVER seen one of those in the wild, only at at the odd trade show or convention. I feel the same way about the 85mm f/1.2 (which has much the same design as the 50mm f/1.0). Extreme poor handling on the 85mm f/1.2 makes is a lens I'd NEVER buy, but I have rented on occasion and do see them in use from time to time.

I'd be hard pressed to call going from f/1.8 to f/2.0 or from f/1.0 to f/1.2 a "step backwards."



TrumpetPower! said:


> Who's up for a 12-pound 400mm f/1.8?



Ummm. . . No thanks.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 11, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Well, _I_ appreciated the joke. And I _still_ want one of those mugs! It's a shame Canon only made them as a one-off for that one show.



http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/camera-lens-mug/


----------



## jasonsim (Oct 12, 2012)

I liked my Canon 200mm f/2L IS, but when I found a absolute gem Canon 200mm f/1.8L for half the price I sold the f/2L.

Sample from the f/1.8L:












Sample from the f/2L:


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Oct 13, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Well, _I_ appreciated the joke. And I _still_ want one of those mugs! It's a shame Canon only made them as a one-off for that one show.
> ...



Wow -- thanks! I'll have to add that to my Christmas list....

b&


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 15, 2012)

Yep, love my 200 f/2. Wouldn't trade it for anything. You just can't match that f/2 look with this much compression. Butter smooth.


----------



## lipe (Oct 17, 2012)

Hi

i love this lens, i am not sure if you guys like cheerleading


----------



## lipe (Oct 17, 2012)

one more for cheer

best lens of all my lens


----------



## lipe (Oct 17, 2012)

one more a flip thanks for the review


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 1, 2012)

M.ST said:


> I like the EF 200 f/2 L IS lens. It´s one of my favorite lenses too.



What's amazing is that the lens is actually noticeably better than the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens at 200mm. When scanning through files, I can see a difference. A truly exceptional piece of glass!


----------



## gtk80 (Dec 17, 2012)

This lens is my favorite along with 50/1.2L, the only lenses that i own nowdays.


----------



## RVB (Dec 27, 2012)

The 200f2 ,TSE-17 and the 85L mk2 are my favorite Canon lenses.. The only drawback of the 200f2 is the weight..with a 1DX it's a beast..

Oh and I forgot to mention the 8-15 zoom.. great fun .


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Dec 27, 2012)

My favorite lens, by far.... iso 8000, f/2.0, 1/100 sec with the 1D Mark IV....


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 27, 2012)

RVB said:


> The only drawback of the 200f2 is the weight..with a 1DX it's a beast..



Eh.... The price?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 27, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > The only drawback of the 200f2 is the weight..with a 1DX it's a beast..
> ...



I still haven't paid mine off yet. I'm using it at basketball Saturday from the stands, because in the gym I'll be in has no lights above either basket .


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

I also can't think of a sharper lens by Canon.


----------



## elflord (Dec 30, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Discuss our review of the Canon EF 200 f/2L IS



How well does this lens work with teleconverters ? I looked at the pictures at thedigiticalpicture.com and it seems that at least in the center, stopped down one stop it stands up pretty well against the 300mm f/4 and the 400mm f/5.6.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 30, 2012)

elflord said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss our review of the Canon EF 200 f/2L IS
> ...



To my unskilled eyes it looks good with my 2xIII. I do not have the 1,4xIII.


----------



## JoeDavid (Jan 1, 2013)

Everyone complains about the leather lens "Condom" that Canon uses with the large white primes as lens caps. I bought this product for both my 200/2 and 300/2.8 L lenses:

http://www.ephotocraft.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=705795001033

I don't know if they are compatible with the newer version II lenses but, for the earlier version, they've worked great for me. 

FWIW


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 17, 2013)

these lens caps are the best
http://www.lenscoat.com/hoodie-lens-caps-c-5.html?osCsid=c3128c973e5defa1c4f706b17381bb4c

got one for my 600 FD since the original that it came with was in a bad way (perished with age but the lens itself is in mint condition)


----------

