# 200mm 2.8L II



## 1255 (Aug 29, 2012)

just curious if anyone wants to share any thoughts on the 200mm 2.8L II, IQ, image sharpness, colors, use on ff v. crop bodies? thanks all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2012)

Great value, excellent lens if a somewhat dated design. Easy to handle, does well outdoors on APS-C (too long indoors, generally), great on FF for portriats with lots of compression. I only sold mine after getting a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.


----------



## pwp (Aug 30, 2012)

This lens has a lot of highly satisfied users. It's great value for money. Rather than drill into the technical stuff here, read up:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/170-canon-ef-200mm-f28-l-usm-ii-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/580-canon_200_28_ff
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=37
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/161

You'll get the picture that this is a very highly rated lens across most of the relevant parameters. 

-PW


----------



## 1255 (Sep 3, 2012)

thanks for the input, much appreciated


----------



## eli72 (Sep 3, 2012)

It's also somewhat of a "stealth" lens - in a lot of places you are limited to a lens of no more than 6 inches, but you need the reach and the low light capability. For example, when shooting hockey from the stands, I'm almost always shooting at 200mm, so using the fixed 200 f2.8 is just as easy as the 70-200 f2.8 (much lighter over the course of a game, also) and far less likely to draw the attention of the arena staff who tend to frown on larger "professional" lenses (it also helps that the 200 is black, so it doesn't stand out like a lot of the other L lenses). I find that the image quality is excellent.


----------



## helpful (Sep 3, 2012)

This lens is the bomb.

You want to have an equivalent of a 300mm f/2.8 L on your 7D???

The Canon 200mm f/2.8L II is it, and it's actually way more versatile since you can sling the thing around as fast as a western gunfighter. The balance is perfect, the most perfect handling of all Canon lenses in my experience. The 135mm L is a little too short, others a little too heavy or light, many too long. If you're walking around you'll get far more tired and far fewer pictures lugging a camera with the 70-200mm lens. Much better if you have this lens on one camera and a wider lens on another camera.

Recommended times 10,000.


----------



## picturesbyme (Sep 3, 2012)

One my fav. lenses. Used it for a variety of images and it never let me down.
It has great IQ, it's sharp and the color/contrast is just awesome from this lens.






















This gallery was shot with the 200mm 2.8L II: http://atlanticpicture.com/p446494716


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 3, 2012)

I used this lens on an XTi and 7D, and absolutley loved it.

Optically it's a very very sharp lens, bright, fast focusing, very useful focus limiter (makes fast USM ring focus even faster) and will get the best out of a basic camera, and make a good camera absolutely sing!

I found it faster for stills use than the 70-200 f2.8 I switched to (I needed the flexibility for video) but have no issue whole hearedly recommending this lens.

These shots were taken on an XTi with centre spot Ai Servo.. a very basic set up... Except the speedway one which was taken with a 7D, wide open!


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 3, 2012)

Love the lens. Must be the best bang for the buck if this is the focal length you are looking for. I use it with a 5DII. On crop it becomes a 320mm lens. I've been shooting it handheld and with monopod support with good results. I personally don't care that it doesn't have IS.


----------



## Ophthaltographer (Sep 4, 2012)

I bought the lens 8 years ago to capture high school sports. It was excellent on a crop body (20D & 40D) for indoor volleyball and Friday night football under the lights. Never missed having to carry a 70-200 which I figured would be at 200 mm 98% of the time anyway.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 10, 2012)

How does this perform compare to the 70-200 mk.ii @ 200mm wide open?


----------



## dstppy (Sep 10, 2012)

I, also, am in love with this lens. I actually started using my monopod with a lens ring and this (after having the monopod over a year and not really using it all that much.

My Two favorite configurations are:
FF straight on body
Crop w/ 1.4x teleconverter

This is really one of those lenses that (after you learned the basics), really gives you a lot of confidence from what you get from it.


----------



## FunkyD3121 (Sep 10, 2012)

Been wanting to rent one of these & plan on doing so really soon. I think with a monopod or tripod it would be Great at outdoor concerts, & other things.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 10, 2012)

This is a lens i am constantly on the lookout for on ebay... the fact i never see it on their tells me that all the owners really like it!


----------



## sdsr (Sep 10, 2012)

1255 said:


> just curious if anyone wants to share any thoughts on the 200mm 2.8L II, IQ, image sharpness, colors, use on ff v. crop bodies? thanks all.



I recently rented both it and the 135 f/2 and was greatly impressed by both on my 5Dii, for all the reasons already given by others. I like them both so much I've been unable to decide since then which one to buy, but right now may be leaning towards the 200. I didn't do a direct comparison, but it may be slightly sharper than my 70-200 f/4 at 200 (Roger Cicala at lensrentals.com claims it's sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 200mm); either way, it has two of the usual advantages of 2.8 over 4.0 that matter to me - better in low light plus even smoother blurred backgrounds. Plus, if, like me, you end up at 200mm much of the time on a 70-200, it has huge advantages of weight/size/etc. over the zooms. It would be nice if it had IS, of course, but I was pleasantly surprised at my success rate hand-held, even in low light.


----------



## facedodge (Sep 10, 2012)

K-amps said:


> How does this perform compare to the 70-200 mk.ii @ 200mm wide open?



Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## steliosk (Sep 10, 2012)

its a bit weird lens.
its very sharp all the way from f/4.

it suffers a bit from spherochromatism / astigmatism at 2.8 especially in the bokeh

was not quite happy with it for portrait usage.

also:
The lack of image stabilizer
The old design
The fact that in an aps-c sensor 200mm goes up to 320mm (in some cases like shooting birds is an advantage)
and i the fact that i prefer zoom lens for telephoto
are my negatives.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is the best zoom you can buy for a fair price!

But if your range from the subject is specific and you don't need anything less than 200mm (320mm in aps-c) then this 200mm f2.8L is your lens in a very very logical price.

My friend sells one not even used for 10 times at 600 euros price!


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 10, 2012)

Great shot of the dogs, 7enderbender!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 11, 2012)

facedodge said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > How does this perform compare to the 70-200 mk.ii @ 200mm wide open?
> ...



Fanks. @2.8 not a lot of difference but at f4, the prime is better.

The zoom has better vignette control wider.

Prime sharper over all but zoom holds up respectably... I reckon you can get great shots with either one... but if you use TC's, the Prime would be a tad sharper stopped slightly.


----------

