Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

[revup67]

Recently acquired this lens and am very impressed.  It was a toss up between the F2 version for $4800 or this one for $779.  I won't compare the two however as the quality of the F2 is bar none but on a Canon 5D Mark III this 2.8 version is an excellent combo.  It's lack of IS is of no consequence as the lens is rather comfortable to hold and lightweight.  Just got this Friday 9-14-12.  Here's a first set of pics from a concert I shot on 9/17/12 (this pic was posted elsewhere in the forum under Lenses).  All photos are converted from RAW (L) to 1920 JPG then down sampled again to 1024 for this forum.  5D Mark III was set to Manual Mode except ISO set to Auto.  It would be far too confusing to have to adjust ISO for the ever changing lights and their intensity.  In certain instances (not here) I did use a 580 EX II on a bracket off camera.

Photo 1 EXIF:  F3.2, ISO 5000, 1/200s
Photo 2 EXIF:  F4, ISO 400, 1/200s
Photo 3 EXIF:  F4, ISO 400, 1/200s

[noncho]

Well,
200 2.8 is a great lens, but using a flash (if it's not wireless of the camera) is just ruining the stage lighting.

[revup67]

Well, 200 2.8 is a great lens, but using a flash (if it's not wireless of the camera) is just ruining the stage lighting.

The first shot does not use a flash hence ISO 5000 the second and third are using a flash.  The flash was on a bracket and not in the hot shoe and corded of course.  Might be sort of difficult to hand hold the 580 EX II in one hand while holding the 5D Mark III and 200mm in the other if radio triggered / infrared.  This lens does not have IS, may or may not be a good idea hence the bracket usage (played it safe).  The flash was diffused and manually set at 14mm also as to not interfere with stage lights too much. 

[skitron]

The 200L 2.8 is a sharp lens, here's a handheld snapshot using it at f/2.8 with a manual bounce flash:

[Menace]

The 200L 2.8 is a sharp lens, here's a handheld snapshot using it at f/2.8 with a manual bounce flash:

Lovely portrait. Well done.

[wayno]

I appreciate its quite a bit cheaper but does this lens do anything the 70-200 2.8 ii IS can't do?

[paul13walnut5]

I appreciate its quite a bit cheaper but does this lens do anything the 70-200 2.8 ii IS can't do?

Lets you buy a 135mm f2L and a 50mm f1.4 with the change?

Seriously though, when I owned the 200 f2.8L I really loved the speed of working with it.  You didn't have a zoom ring to play with and so became more about composition, and spent more time tracking (useful with AiServo) so for me it got me better stills at 200mm that my present 70-200 f2.8L (nonIS) gets me at 200mm just because of the way you work with it.

I'm not suggesting for a second that the prime 200mm is for every situation, or for every user, or even a better lens optically etc.  Just that the working method is better, in some situations.

[axtstern]

I appreciate its quite a bit cheaper but does this lens do anything the 70-200 2.8 ii IS can't do?

If you go by current mainstream: NO
Reach, flexibility, stabilization, optical quality and the "look I'm carrying professional gear"factor are all in favor of the zoom.

If you are a little more square than others: YES
lighter, smaller and  black. Less attractive to thieves, more difficult to spot, less suspicious in the eyes of officials when entering a music or sport event. When being used on cameras without build in/added secondary grip the lens feels more balanced than the zoom.

Optical quality is inferior to the more modern range of white lenses, however it fits  the resolutionof  my outdated camera sensors.

Ironic brackets on " Last but not least, being knocked arse over heels by waves, having become airborne when Chinese stage coaches went through potholes big enough to bury the driver in, generates the sudden question if you use your left arm to protect the canon gear in your right arm or your body. Being smacked to ground with a lightweight 900 Euro lens in my hands felt always less painful in many ways than doing the same stunt with a double weight, triple priced lens. " Ironic brackets off

[skitron]

I appreciate its quite a bit cheaper but does this lens do anything the 70-200 2.8 ii IS can't do?

IMO, not really except for handling. I could split hairs and say my prime has ever so slightly better color and bokeh and the zoom is ever so slightly sharper, but for real pictures its kinda pointless.

I ended up with both because I didn't have anything long and in my indecisiveness did a low ball bid on the prime on eBay and actually won, and it even it turned out to be mint. But my primary use case for this length is seated theater and kids sports, so the zoom and IS were too attractive to pass up when the 70-200 IS2 dropped right under $2K at B&H...

But so far, I'm keeping the prime just because its small, light and black and every bit as good as the 70-200 IS2 long end, even arguably a half a hair better. Plus it's still small, light and mostly black with the 1.4x TC3 making it an outstanding "covert" f/4 280mm...and a small black lens and monopod is less attention-getting than a great white even without the monopod...

[ncsa]

A few with a Kenko 1.4x TC DGX 300, all handheld


I see you... by ncsabkk, on Flickr


in thought.. by ncsabkk, on Flickr


on watch by ncsabkk, on Flickr

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

A few with a Kenko 1.4x TC DGX 300, all handheld


I see you... by ncsabkk, on Flickr


in thought.. by ncsabkk, on Flickr


on watch by ncsabkk, on Flickr

All great shots, but that first shot is masterful.  Great eye contact, great tones, awesome detail!