# EF 200mm f2 , how much do you use it and for what?



## Viggo (Jul 7, 2013)

Hi guys!

Do you feel the 70-200 f2,8 II gets more use than the 200 (if you own both) or is the 200 SO awesome you find uses for it anyway?

I love the 70-200 II, but always had a thing for the 200 f2, but never owned it. I owned the 300 f2.8 (so I'm used to the weight), but that was too long for me. 

And forget, "if you really need the extra stop" I want it if it's awesome as it looks ;D

Thanks!


----------



## K-amps (Jul 7, 2013)

Do you really need an extra stop? 

I am in the same boat... OI have about 6-7k to spend... I also already have the 70-200 mk.ii, but always had a thing for the 200 F2, but am leaning towards the 300 2.8ii


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 7, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Do you really need an extra stop?
> 
> I am in the same boat... OI have about 6-7k to spend... I also already have the 70-200 mk.ii, but always had a thing for the 200 F2, but am leaning towards the 300 2.8ii



+1...or 400mm f2.8 IS version I - Version II is even better ;D ---- except the price tag :-[


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 7, 2013)

I've got both....i use the 70-200 more, but the 200 2.0 makes the money shots 

It is so much better in everything. The bokeh is a tream come true. It's even better than the 85 1.2 and the 135 2.0.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 7, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I would not look to much after a 200/2.0. The 70-200/2.8 ISmk2 is so good at 200mm that 200/2.0 feels very expensive in comparison and the result I get from the zoom and prime is very similar at 2,8 with a 5dmk2.
> The 200/2.0 from Canon is not in my eyes good as the 300/2.8IS , and when I compared Canon 200/2,0 and the Nikon 200/2.0 the Nikon lens was better.



I use the 200/2 for portraits only. It is incredible, but as you mention the 300/2.8L II blows you away. I just used it this holiday and it is a droolworthy lens I will never afford  It is even very fast with the 2xIII (this was on a 1DX, so the additional battery power might have contributed to the speed).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 7, 2013)

Are you kidding? It's one of Canon's sharpest, if not the sharpest, lens at f/2. I use it for indoor sports or even for outdoor if I know I don't want to shoot shorter than 200. My copy is sharper (and I can tell when I print 8x10) than the 70-200L II IS at 200. When I do golf I take my 400 f/2.8, 200 f/2, and 70-200.


----------



## retina (Jul 7, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I would not look to much after a 200/2.0. *The 70-200/2.8 ISmk2 is so good at 200mm that 200/2.0 feels very expensive in comparison and the result I get from the zoom and prime is very similar at 2,8 with a 5dmk2.*
> The 200/2.0 from Canon is not in my eyes good as the 300/2.8IS , and when I compared Canon 200/2,0 and the Nikon 200/2.0 the Nikon lens was better.



Given the price and it's extreme sharpness wide open, you should be shooting at f/2 exclusively with it.
So stopping it down to f/2.8 and comparing to the zoom is kinda pointless really.

It's a phenomenal lens that will set your work apart from the rest and put a very big smile on your face when looking at the results. 
It's a huge investment but you will amaze your clients and higher your earnings too 
I have the zoom as well but if I had the cash I would definitely go for it!


----------



## Viggo (Jul 7, 2013)

Thanks all for your replies! Really appreciate it


----------



## PavelR (Jul 7, 2013)

Smurf1811 said:


> I've got both....i use the 70-200 more, but the 200 2.0 makes the money shots
> 
> It is so much better in everything. The bokeh is a tream come true. It's even better than the 85 1.2 and the 135 2.0.


+1
(I own also 70-200/2, 135/2, 85/1.4, but 200/2 is the only lens I go with, if I would like to go light ;-) )
(300/2.8 IS version I. sold -> at F 3.5-4 IQ comparable to 200/2 at F 2-2.8)


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 8, 2013)

The 200/2 is one of my preferite Canon lenses ever. Its color rendition is wonderful and its bokeh is nothing less, even stopped down. Obviously, IQ is outstanding in every aspect already WO. That's just an amazing lens, as its price, weight and size suggest. I use it whenever I can.
Of course I use it much less than the 70-200/2,8 if I'm shooting events or stuff like that, but when I can take my time and I don't have to constantly move my equipment in length and breadth on my own, there's no doubt, I leave the zoom home. The only disadvantage of the prime, compared to the zoom, in my opinion, is the longer MFD.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 11, 2013)

Portraits. It's the portrait king if you have space.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 28, 2013)

Which one has the fastest and
Most accurate AF, 70200 mk2 or 200 f2?

I feel the the 70200 is faster by quite a bit compared to the 300 mk1. After spending a a
Great deal of time learning about the 200 f2, I can't really see anything that is better except the insane 3d look on the
Images. Hard to justify, still, that feel is hard to argue away.

Cons vs 70200 IMO :

Price, weight, same or "slower" AF. The need for f2 isn't there except for shallow
Dof. 1/1000s is easy to do at 12800 on poor light with the 2.8. Lack of versatility against
The zoom.

Pros. Insane 3D feel and pop. And that's all I got lol.

Ps, I really want to
Use it for a week, but nowhere to rent.


----------



## No Mayo (Aug 3, 2013)

I recommend choosing the lens you need based on focal length first. The lure of an f2 aperture can be so tempting that I wonder if some may purchase this lens and permanently mount a 1.4 ext on it thus negating much of the value of this lens. I use my 70-200/2.8II more than my 200/2, but I really love them both for different reasons. There really is something magical about an image shot with it (200/2) wide open both in regards to sharpness and the quality of the out of focus background. Great for portraits and lowlight reach. I do not own a 300/2.8 but I do own (and love) the 400/2.8IS (the heavy one!). If you need the 300 reach, get the 300.


----------



## eml58 (Aug 3, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Are you kidding? It's one of Canon's sharpest, if not the sharpest, lens at f/2. I use it for indoor sports or even for outdoor if I know I don't want to shoot shorter than 200. My copy is sharper (and I can tell when I print 8x10) than the 70-200L II IS at 200. When I do golf I take my 400 f/2.8, 200 f/2, and 70-200.



Completely agree, nothing sharper in the range (200mm), murders the 70-200f/2.8 II and this is no slouch of a Lens either, but the 200f/2 is again a bit of a specialist Lens, like the 85f/1.2 or the 135f/2, having said that I use the 200f/2 a lot more than either the 85 or the 135, the 200f/2 @ f/2 is just Sharp, Crisp, Clear and a complete pleasure to use.

The 300f/2.8 II is also a wonderfully sharp Lens, I wouldn't like to pick between these two lenses re sharpness, they are both just about perfect, but the 200 is f/2, you want to clear a background, this is your Lens.

And I've shot the Nikon 200f/2 on the D800 just for comparison, and there's not a hope in hell the Nikon 200 is sharper, but that's an opinion and subjective, 1Dx + Canon 200f/2, Sharpness & Bokeh heaven.

Use ?? anything that requires 200mm and a perfectly blurred background, portraits of course, but I've used this Lens on Safari, just a great Lens


----------



## Viggo (Aug 3, 2013)

Thanks a lot for the inputs. I had the 300 f2.8 but whilst I loved the IQ , it was indeed too long for me and ended up
Not being used. I'm a sucker for shallow dof and AF in combination. The 85 doesn't work for me and it lacks that amazing sharpness wide open, and it's fully understandable at f1.2. The 135 is neither here nor there for me and that focal works best for me with the 70-200 and IS. And that leaves me with my dream lens, the 200 f2.

I'm glad to see you're all very happy with it, and I think I will be also. I've seen many galleries with several of the superteles and the 70-200, and I can in 85-95% of the cases see when it's the f2, but harder to tell a 70-200, 300 and 400 apart, which tells me I'm on the right path.

My primes are gone so the money is there, can't wait to own this beast. 

I saw a very cool nick for it, "Sauron", I thought that was pretty funny


----------



## Viggo (Aug 7, 2013)

Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.


----------



## Atonegro (Aug 7, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.



In the Netherlands they are selling, don't know where you are though...

http://link.marktplaats.nl/702492857


----------



## Viggo (Aug 7, 2013)

Atonegro said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.
> ...



Thanks man, it's a great price, unfortunately I live in Norway so I have to add 25% tax, so it totals about 600 eur more than the last used one here. But I'll def think about that one.


----------



## Atonegro (Aug 7, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Atonegro said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Wow...That is almost 1000 euro....
Worth the trouble to come and fetch it, and smuggle it into Norway....


----------



## Viggo (Aug 7, 2013)

Atonegro said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Atonegro said:
> ...



Lol, the thought has crossed my mind a few times. The problem is to smuggle a big case like that. And in Norway they're so strict so that if I leave for a vacation with my camera and get stopped on the way back, I HAVE to show a Norwegian reciept or else I will pay taxes on it, even if I bought it used 10 years ago and never had the reciept. CRAZY, so I can't take anything with me other than what I have the reciepts for.


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 7, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Atonegro said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Bring your wife and put a Loreal sticker over the Canon. Everytime I bring out the 200, my wife call's it the beauty bag 

Btw, I also live in Norway, and I have never had any questions asked when scanning my carry-on at the AirPort


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Aug 8, 2013)

The EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM is my favorite lens, which I use for wedding and portrait work. It creates a distinctive look unmatched by any other lens.


----------



## Powder Portraits (Aug 8, 2013)

As a former owner of a EF 200 1.8 L, dose any one have a opinion how the 1.8 compares to the 2.0 200?


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 8, 2013)

I bought a 200mm f1.8 about a year ago, wanting the 200mm f2 IS, but finding a deal on the 1.8. I already owned a 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. The 1.8 had perfect glass but terrible paint.

I found the 1.8 was cool, but not cool enough to justify it. SO big, SO heavy, and while it was awesome, my 2.8 was also awesome.

After 6 months I touched up the paint (Those 80's airbrush skills pay off from time to time) and sold it for about $400 more than I paid. 




Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## Sauropod (Aug 8, 2013)

Via CPS I borrowed a 200 f2. When the time came to return it my wife told me to buy one! She absolutely loved the portraits taken with the 200. She had always liked the 70-200 f2.8 II images but, as others have said, the 200's images can possess a magical quality. If only she'd appreciate the portraiture capabilities of the 400 2.8 ! 

I use the 200 for portraits (where space permits), when I need a "magical" shot with fantastic bokeh, indoor sports, and, my favorite, when I am simply relaxing at a zoo. Also I use it to take pictures of mounted dinosaur bones in less than ideal museum lighting. For me that extra stop can be extremely helpful. 

I love using it at small zoos. Below is a shot of an owl I took at Bearizona. My kids call it the 3d lens and love the looks and quips we get when I use it. 
http://500px.com/photo/42608594

Admittedly the 70-200 goes with me just about everywhere as it is just so versatile and so good at so much. But if you have a well rounded kit the 200 is, in my opinion, an exquisite acquisition.

Your question about use caused me to look at my LR metadata count by lens. I was caught by surprise as of roughly 100,000 pictures in my main catalog the 70-200 was used for ~10,000 shots, the 200 for ~7,000. A far closer number than I would have guessed.


----------



## canon_convert (Aug 8, 2013)

cracking shot Sauropod


----------



## Atonegro (Aug 8, 2013)

Powder Portraits said:


> As a former owner of a EF 200 1.8 L, dose any one have a opinion how the 1.8 compares to the 2.0 200?



Altough the 1.8 is sharp and has almost no CA, the 2.0 is even sharper and has even less CA.
The corners of the 2.0 are a little bit better, and of course has IS.
In my memory the 1.8 was heavier than the 2.0, but how much I don't know.
And the difference between 1.8 and 2.0 seems small, it is certainly noticible.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks again guys, you have removed all my doubts ;D

@Quasimodo: It's not when you leave the country, it's when you get home. I haven't been stopped there yet, but IF you do however...


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 9, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Thanks again guys, you have removed all my doubts ;D
> 
> @Quasimodo: It's not when you leave the country, it's when you get home. I haven't been stopped there yet, but IF you do however...



I know, and being paranoid as I am, I actually have a receipt on my iPad just in case. But the lack of control makes me think that I should buy stuff when abroad.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 9, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again guys, you have removed all my doubts ;D
> ...



For sure, I worked at the Airport for ten years, and they go by tips on drugs and other more serious stuff, they usually don't bother with us smalltime smugglers, lol. They have a neat trick though, they have undercover custom officers that stand by the baggage pick-up to listen to all the tourists that talk about how much more than the limit they brought with them


----------



## Viggo (Aug 17, 2013)

Thanks for all of your helpful replies. I got my 200 today. Done calibrating tonight. Anyone else tried to calibrate the 200 to a 1dX using Reikan Focal? I had a lot of issues. But it looks great now, oh my it's sharp and sweet!


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 18, 2013)

What AFMA numbers did you end up with?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 18, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> What AFMA numbers did you end up with?



For now, without testing I had one run at +11 and then +8, but the strangest thing happened when calibrating, it couldn't focus, I had about 60 shots and 4 valid points! There was a weird ticking sound when focusing and it just wouldn't find the target. And it's not the set up. And when I disconnected it work perfect without that ticking sound, and I had turned IS off. 

I'll try it out today and see if it's way off or better than yesterday. Anyone heard of that issue and experienced it?

*edit* did another run today and seems +11 is the absolute best. Still the ticking issue and veryvery hard for Focal to get focused. AF consistency was 83,4% and 92.3% !! Both my 2470 and 70200 was over 99,7% at all focals. But the 200 only has this issue connected to the computer, both Mac and pc with both 1.8 and 1.9 versions.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2013)

Haven't heard back from Focal about the focusing issue, but after extensive trial and error I landed at+9 which looks great at distances. And what a lens, I don't think I want to keep the 70-200, I would regret mounting it instead of the 200 every time, lol.

Anybody have a tip for a lens case? Which holds only the lens as snug as possible. I like the Lowepro lens cases.


----------

