The 200mm Prime 2.8 II USM a real sleeper

[revup67]

After considering a 70-200 (all versions) but owning the already expensive 70-300 L IS USM I had opted for the 200mm 2.8 II prime and couldn't be more jazzed with my choice.  The attached photo taken yesterday of a singer in a local rock outfit (without flash) on a Canon 5D Mark III really makes this lens shine.  I took shots up close and from far away and quite pleased with all of the results

Anyone else out in CR land using this lens ?  From my readings it doesn't get much exposure and is overshadowed by the 70-200 IS USM 2.8 II.

On a side note, the lens hood was a struggle to get on and off.  I called Canon who were of zero hep for ideas other than to bring it to the service center.  I wouldn't mind the 30 minute drive each way if they had one to exchange but trying to obtain that info today was fruitless.  To lessen the struggle and come up with resolve, I opted to put the lens hood on and off again multiple times (forward and reverse for storage) and it seems to have loosened up quite a bit.

PS EXIF info is:  F 3.2 IS0 5000, 1/200, no flash, AI Focus.  Image is from a RAW to a 1920 JPG to a 1024 JPG

[axeri]

Thanks for the post! I ordered mine and can't wait to try it. I agree, it's not popular at all but I chose it because I don't like bulky equipment.

[revup67]

Ahh very cool..you won't be disappointed. A real joy!  Where did you get yours from?  I found mine last week on Abe's of Maine.  I found a $15 coupon online (loyalty15) and they threw in free a 72mm Super HMC Hoya UV (O) filter.  It was a no brainer.

[GMCPhotographics]

I had one of these for about three years and I replaced it with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. But i think my old 200 prime was a weeny bit sharper and had nicer bokeh...and the contrast was more pleasing. It's AF was about the most accurate outside of a big white I've seen and it's sharpness was slightly better than my 85IIL and 135L. It's just a shame it doesn't have an IS system

[axeri]

Ahh very cool..you won't be disappointed. A real joy!  Where did you get yours from?  I found mine last week on Abe's of Maine.  I found a $15 coupon online (loyalty15) and they threw in free a 72mm Super HMC Hoya UV (O) filter.  It was a no brainer.

Great. I bought mine in Spain, prices are quite different here, usually more expensive.

[revup67]

I had one of these for about three years and I replaced it with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. But i think my old 200 prime was a weeny bit sharper and had nicer bokeh...and the contrast was more pleasing. It's AF was about the most accurate outside of a big white I've seen and it's sharpness was slightly better than my 85IIL and 135L. It's just a shame it doesn't have an IS system

All good points.  I shot with this on Sunday for the first time.  A lot of my lenses do have the IS but I found with this version 2 it was not an issue.  The lens felt great to hold, pleasingly comfortable and didn't find an IS need per say (shot primarily between 1/125 and 1/200) with very dynamic lighting conditions.  It did have a second switch for 3.5 meters to infinity and also 8.5 meters to infinity which may offer faster focusing than the latter.  Did the earlier version have this as well?

[jthomson]

One of my favourite lenses.
Works great with a 1.4x converter.
I actually think that both the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-200 F2.8L IS II  may be a little bit sharper, but the size weight and cost of the prime were just what I was looking for.

[revup67]

One of my favourite lenses. Works great with a 1.4x converter. I actually think that both the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-200 F2.8L IS II  may be a little bit sharper, but the size weight and cost of the prime were just what I was looking for.

I think you may be right on the 70-200 IS USM L II but not by much but yes, 3x the price literally and heavier though it does have IS.

[paul13walnut5]

One of my favourite lenses of those I've owned, sold to make way for a 70-200 f2.8L, which I need for video.

No regrets but I enjoyed this lens whilst I had it, found it to be a terrifically fast performer, especially with the focus limiter set.  I also struggled with the hood. It slackens off over time.

I found it a very fast lens in use, when I'm shooting stills with the zoom I tend to play about more during my shot, with the fixed 200 it was a case of point and blast.  It made me more decisive in that way that primes by their nature do.

This lens let me track a jet ski coming directly towards the camera in AiServo on a basic Rebel XTi.  Every shot in the sequence was optically usable.  A brilliant lens.

[revup67]

Paulie walnut (is that from Sopranos?) ..nice write up on the 200mm.  I got more warm and fuzzies for sure.  I look forward to exploiting this further. did you have version I or II /

[paul13walnut5]

I had version II with the plastic (crap) hood which doesn't really reverse mount properly and scratches if you breathe on it.

The version I was identical in every way except that it had a metal sliding hood constructed into the lens.  If I were to consider this lens again I would probably seek out a Mk1 for the hood issue alone...

Either way, optically superlative lens which is joyful to use.

I use a monopod or tripod most of the time, and I would really recommend the tripod mount, although the lens is fairly light for it's type, if you shoot sports the tripod ring makes it really nice handling on a monopod for pans etc.