Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal

[unfocused]

I once had the FD version of this lens and loved it. I've been tempted many times to buy this lens, but keep holding off in the hopes that Canon will introduce an IS version. This lens with the current 4-stop IS would be worth twice the current price in my opinion. Given the age of this lens, there may be others like me waiting for an updated version.

[RAKAMRAK]

@paul13walnut5

From many discussions that I have read here on CR, I know and agree completely to whatever you have written. Do not get me wrong there. I have also seen some photos by this lens and they were amazingly sharp. It is definitely a good or very good lens.

But my reply was solely to the questions asked by OP, and the evidence presented by OP himself/herself. He did not ask for the relative benefit of 200mm L 2.8 II over other smaller max aperture lenses. He just said that he knows or thinks that this lens is undersold in spite of being what it is. So from that I drew the conclusion that seemed natural to me, that most photogs prefer other advantages than those provided by this lens (which are so nicely put together by you). If I have to relate my reply to your reply, then I would have to say not many are sports photographers who could take advantage of the AF issue pointed by you. So many others prefer the zoom advantage as you have acknowledged as well.

The fact (as claimed by OP) that this lens sells less also points to the probable scenario where many photogs do not really understand/care about the "only horizontal" or "only vertical" AF system of their camera's central points. Again we come back to the situation where not many need to photograph fast moving subjects (like sports photogs). So if occasionally there camera fails to AF on something, it is probably not even noticed. Therefore for this crowd (probably including me) bigger max aperture is not a big deal. For me (and for this crowd) the benefit of zoom and IS (of say 70-200 f/4 IS) overwhelmingly weighs against the few times I may miss AF.

Having said that, I will agree with you in that I disagree with you about the benefit of IS: for me it is a big deal. I benefit a lot from IS due to the type of subjects I generally photograph. But that is a personal issue altogether, and has nothing to do with the factual assertions of OP.

[paul13walnut5]

@RAKAMRAK

Agreed, also.  It's a broad church, with many different nuts and many different ways of cracking them.

For a lot of folk the stop difference isn't a big deal on paper, what a lot of folk don't realise is that the faster aperture affects the operation of the camera in ways other than exposure.

I was making a general point, prompted by your reasonable assertion, which I hope you haven't taken personally, as that was not my intention, and would apologise if thats the case.

Cheers.

[RAKAMRAK]

@RAKAMRAK

Agreed, also.  It's a broad church, with many different nuts and many different ways of cracking them.

For a lot of folk the stop difference isn't a big deal on paper, what a lot of folk don't realise is that the faster aperture affects the operation of the camera in ways other than exposure.

I was making a general point, prompted by your reasonable assertion, which I hope you haven't taken personally, as that was not my intention, and would apologise if thats the case.

Cheers.

Not at all. I mean there was nothing to take offense. Most of the times the exchange of opinions and ideas in CR are quite pleasurable, enjoyable, and good learning experience.

You were forwarding your opinion as I was mine. I have learnt a lot of stuff from many of your comments in different topics here.

May be I wrote so much in the reply that it seemed that I have been offended . On top of that there may be some mistake in my usage of English as well (which is my second language). I should use more emoticons.....
 

[telephonic]

Ive seen lately that this les is one of canons most undersold lenses, why.
The only reason I've heard why people haven't upgraded, is because most people with a 70-300 or 75-300 go to a 70-200 f4. But this lens is even cheaper, and it is 2.8.

You say why, I'll chime in on similar note as many others. The smaller 200 is not a zoom, it's not white (aka. not cool), and probably not many user of the lens you mentioned realise the benefit of AF speed gained by upgrading to f/2.8.

I own this lens for almost 2 years, and this is "my precious" (for its price and its quality). I had the dilemma whether to take this or 70-200/4. Both has no IS, but I jumped on the smaller 200 because:

it's black (inconspicuous; still a head-turner with its hood on, though)
it's lighter (must check the numbers though, but on 20D, its light enough in my feeble hand),
it's prime.

Virtually against most people's logic behind the move to 70-200. But why go mainstream? 

[7enderbender]

Ive seen lately that this les is one of canons most undersold lenses, why.
The only reason I've heard why people haven't upgraded, is because most people with a 70-300 or 75-300 go to a 70-200 f4. But this lens is even cheaper, and it is 2.8.

That worked for me. Was one of the first EF lenses I bought. I didn't and don't want a 70-200 zoom and opted for a 135/200 combo instead. Don't tell Canon but I would've actually paid more for that prime pair then for 70-200 2.8LII. So I consider it a steal. And I like the fact that it doesn't have IS.

[Lnguyen1203]

I traded the 200f2.8 II for a 70-300L and don't regret it.  The lens is pretty sharp under good light, but under low light, I found it was tough without IS, so the non IS negated the f2.8 for me.  It's very light. Which is great or carrying around.  I found, however, because it's so light, I kept forgetting that it is a 200mm lens and so etimes got blurry picture.  I'm pretty happy itch my 70-300L under good light and appreciate the extra reach in a small light weight package.

[funkboy]

I've got a 189 f/2.8L.

Er, that is a 135 f/2L and a 1.4x TC :-).

Very versatile & portable setup, and you can leave the TC at home when you don't think you'll be needing it.

I sold the 70-200 f/4L non-IS zoom after I got the 135 & TC as the zoom just ended up not fitting in my bag when it came time to pack for a trip, & the 135L always came along.