# Why I love the 200mm f2.0 prime



## luckydude (Jan 20, 2015)

So I'm not a pro, not by a long stretch. But some pros convinced me to get the 200mm f2.0 and they were right. 

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

I've seen much better pictures from that lens by people better than me, I'm just stoked that a non-pro like me could get those pics. It's worth 
the price. I've got a lot of Canon glass, this one is special and gets used a lot.


----------



## Perio (Jan 20, 2015)

Yep, I also have 200 2.0 and same as you are, I'm just an amateur. Love this lens, despite its size and weight ) cool photographs, enjoy it!  I wish I had more skills to fully use its potential. 

How do you clean front element of your 200 2.0 when it gets dirty?


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 20, 2015)

Perio said:


> How do you clean front element of your 200 2.0 when it gets dirty?



Simply use a clean photo lens cloth - just remember to breath on the lens first (as with any other lens).


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 20, 2015)

luckydude said:


> So I'm not a pro, not by a long stretch. But some pros convinced me to get the 200mm f2.0 and they were right.
> 
> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/daryn/index.html
> 
> ...



Nice series and the perfect setting to use this wonderful lens. I shot both the old and new version. The old one felt like carrying a rock compared to the new version. I have been trying to get a refurbished one for a while - but no luck. Not many have been sold, so they get sucked from Canon's site the instant they come up for sale...


----------



## mrzero (Jan 20, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Perio said:
> 
> 
> > How do you clean front element of your 200 2.0 when it gets dirty?
> ...



I've been told that you're not supposed to breathe on the front element of a lens before cleaning it. Use a proper lens cleaning solution and a clean lens cloth. I found this article from Petapixel that confirmed the advice from Nikon not to breathe on your lens. http://petapixel.com/2012/12/07/your-breath-contains-harmful-acids-that-can-damage-camera-lenses/ However, the webpage from Nikon was apparently updated to remove the statement that breath could damage lens coatings. https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/539/~/how-do-i-clean-the-camera-lens? Hard to say if that is not true, or just bad PR from a marketing standpoint to say that your lens coatings are so fragile.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 20, 2015)

mrzero said:


> Hard to say if that is not true, or just bad PR from a marketing standpoint to say that your lens coatings are so fragile.



First time I have heard that. I must say I trust my breath a lot more than any chemicals which lens makers always advise against. But maybe I am wrong.


----------



## mrzero (Jan 20, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > Hard to say if that is not true, or just bad PR from a marketing standpoint to say that your lens coatings are so fragile.
> ...



http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/cleaning.htm

OK, Ken Rockwell says he breathes on his lenses before cleaning them. So, that answers it.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2015)

The one lens I will NEVER sell. Absolutely unique. 

Clean the front? No problem, the front glass is a protector like a uv filter, and not that expensive to replace. I have only wiped my lens after heavy rain when the glass is covered in droplets.


----------



## Atonegro (Jan 20, 2015)

mrzero said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > mrzero said:
> ...



Breathing on a lens will not affect the coating.
However, a lot of (mostly older) lenses can develop fungus-problems by doing that.
All water-containing fluids have that risk, and your breath even has virtualy no anti-fungus ingrediants.

But the 200 F2 is relatively well protected, so it is pretty safe.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 20, 2015)

Don't own it, too much for my pocket, but I rent it on a specific sport event once or twice a year and I agree it is a superb lens. I have shot with the 85 1.2, 35 1.4, 135 2.0 but the greatest satisfaction has always been from the 200 2.0
People complain about the weight but I handheld it shooting basketball, volleyball and video 14hours in two days and it is ok. I use only a monopod during soccer games (and video if for longer period).
For hockey, though, I prefer the 135 f2 wide open, shooting from behind the goalie through the Plexiglas. Smaller for such a fast action game.
I am no professional on hockey games, either.

Enjoy! I envy you.


----------



## Perio (Jan 20, 2015)

mrzero said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > mrzero said:
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 20, 2015)

Viggo said:


> The one lens I will NEVER sell. Absolutely unique.
> 
> Clean the front? No problem, the front glass is a protector like a uv filter, and not that expensive to replace. I have only wiped my lens after heavy rain when the glass is covered in droplets.



I would, ONLY ver II is at least 25% lighter 

Attach this lens on 1Dx = MAJOR G.A.S.


----------



## Perio (Jan 21, 2015)

Viggo said:


> The one lens I will NEVER sell. Absolutely unique.
> 
> Clean the front? No problem, the front glass is a protector like a uv filter, and not that expensive to replace. I have only wiped my lens after heavy rain when the glass is covered in droplets.



I honestly think sometimes to sell my 200 2.0 to get 300 2.8ii. I didn't have actual experience with 300 2.8ii but I've read it's a truly unique lens. I may need to get it as a CPS loan.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 21, 2015)

Perio said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The one lens I will NEVER sell. Absolutely unique.
> ...



I started out by upgrading the 300 f4 to the 2.8 IS I, and I never found a use for 300, to short for birds and too long for people and kids, so even as great as it was I didn't use it. The 200 length is just right for me and I can use it for anything, and I LOVE that extra stop of light.


----------



## dancook (Jan 21, 2015)

more love for the 200mm L 

My wife is doing Tough Mudder in May with some of her friends, hopefully a good opportunity for it.


----------



## spy-glass (Feb 2, 2015)

Why i love my 200mm f/1.8 prime?

Already shoot them side by side. Both are very sharp, i would not take sharpness into account at all when comparing these two lenses. With today's high-ISO DSLRs i think Image Stabilisation is 't that important anymore.

The images from the f/1.8 version has its very own, unique, surreal looking style, while the f/2.0 version gives a more 'regular' looking like the 135 f/2.0.

Cons are the weight and the fact this lens is out of production.

Here some of my 200/1.8 shots where you see the surreal-dreamy bokeh:





















These images will definately look different when taken with the f/2.0 version.


----------



## candyman (Feb 2, 2015)

spy-glass said:


> Why i love my 200mm f/1.8 prime?
> 
> Already shoot them side by side. Both are very sharp, i would not take sharpness into account at all when comparing these two lenses. With today's high-ISO DSLRs i think Image Stabilisation is 't that important anymore.
> 
> ...




Bokehlicious! Great photos
So your collection is the 50 f/1.0 and the 200 f/1.8. It seems you don't go for less  
Or less is more....bokeh


----------

