200mm f/1.8L not for portraits

[scyrene]

Hey all. This is partly a bit of fun, as I'm well aware you shouldn't let a forum make big decisions for you. However, that being said, I'd like your input...

The question is, is the 200 f/1.8L a good choice for someone who *doesn't* do much portraiture?

I've lusted after it for many years. The other lenses I dreamt of, one by one, I have bought - some of them I subsequently sold. I'm not sentimental and will happily sell something I haven't used enough. The 85L was dreamy but got too little use - a little too bulky, too much CA, and above all, too valuable to keep, when I could spend that on other things. On the other hand, my MP-E will be with me forever.

Last year I got the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS macro. It was lovely, but my copy was faulty, so I returned it and got the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It's good, but not nearly as sharp wide open at 200mm as the Sigma, in my opinion. I have used it for astro work though (and this is ongoing).

I could sell it and get a new Sigma with cash to spare. But I'll always dream of the Canon 200L f/1.8L. I can't afford its f/2 IS replacement in the foreseeable future. I know the 1.8 has been used for some high end astro projects, and is a superlative portrait lens. But what about the rest of the time? It's front-heavy, and big, but how is it for other uses? Flowers, landscapes, insects, architecture. With an extension tube if necessary.

All thoughts welcome. Thanks!

PS I'm well aware the 1.8 is no longer supported by Canon, and runs the risk of being useless if the AF motor fails (although it can still be sold for parts). But the difference between it and the f/2 is around £2k at present prices.

 

[privatebydesign]

Hey all. This is partly a bit of fun, as I'm well aware you shouldn't let a forum make big decisions for you. However, that being said, I'd like your input...

The question is, is the 200 f/1.8L a good choice for someone who *doesn't* do much portraiture?

I've lusted after it for many years. The other lenses I dreamt of, one by one, I have bought - some of them I subsequently sold. I'm not sentimental and will happily sell something I haven't used enough. The 85L was dreamy but got too little use - a little too bulky, too much CA, and above all, too valuable to keep, when I could spend that on other things. On the other hand, my MP-E will be with me forever.

Last year I got the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS macro. It was lovely, but my copy was faulty, so I returned it and got the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It's good, but not nearly as sharp wide open at 200mm as the Sigma, in my opinion. I have used it for astro work though (and this is ongoing).

I could sell it and get a new Sigma with cash to spare. But I'll always dream of the Canon 200L f/1.8L. I can't afford its f/2 IS replacement in the foreseeable future. I know the 1.8 has been used for some high end astro projects, and is a superlative portrait lens. But what about the rest of the time? It's front-heavy, and big, but how is it for other uses? Flowers, landscapes, insects, architecture. With an extension tube if necessary.

All thoughts welcome. Thanks!

PS I'm well aware the 1.8 is no longer supported by Canon, and runs the risk of being useless if the AF motor fails (although it can still be sold for parts). But the difference between it and the f/2 is around £2k at present prices.

Personally I think the 200 f1.8 is like playing Russian Roulette, it can't be repaired as the parts are not available even via the usual NOS suppliers and if the fly by wire focus motor goes you can't even focus it manually, leaving you a very expensive unusable lens, a paperweight!

Whilst it has it's fans the truth is for portraits it isn't that 'special', it was made for sports shooting and that is where it really shines. It is a perfect lens for tennis, gymnastics, volleyball etc. I was very lucky in that I used a manual focus FD version a few times, which is as rare as rocking horse poop (and little known factoid was released after the EF version!), but it was the sports use that it really shone.

 

[YuengLinger]

If it's a good copy, I cannot understand how the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II could not be sharp enough for portrait work--even at 2.8. And it gives so many more composition options than a prime 200mm, which for some subjects actually compresses heads too much.

Clearly you are having fun with us.

Go Packers!

 

[Act444]

Personally I'm not a fan of the often heavily compressed look that 200mm offers for posed portrait shots - not to mention the long working distance. However, I utilize both the 70-200 2.8 and 200 2.8 II (when the former is too much lens) for event photography and ice skating shows. I find they work well for both.

And I'm like you (OP), I do little if any portrait shooting at all. Yet the 70-200 is one of my most frequently used lenses. But for the uses you mentioned - flowers, insects - maybe the 180 3.5 Macro might be worth considering instead?

 

[JP]

Hey all. This is partly a bit of fun, as I'm well aware you shouldn't let a forum make big decisions for you. However, that being said, I'd like your input...

The question is, is the 200 f/1.8L a good choice for someone who *doesn't* do much portraiture?

I've lusted after it for many years. The other lenses I dreamt of, one by one, I have bought - some of them I subsequently sold. I'm not sentimental and will happily sell something I haven't used enough. The 85L was dreamy but got too little use - a little too bulky, too much CA, and above all, too valuable to keep, when I could spend that on other things. On the other hand, my MP-E will be with me forever.


bla bla bla...


I could sell it and get a new Sigma with cash to spare. But I'll always dream of the Canon 200L f/1.8L. I can't afford its f/2 IS replacement in the foreseeable future. I know the 1.8 has been used for some high end astro projects, and is a superlative portrait lens. But what about the rest of the time? It's front-heavy, and big, but how is it for other uses? Flowers, landscapes, insects, architecture. With an extension tube if necessary.

All thoughts welcome. Thanks!

PS I'm well aware the 1.8 is no longer supported by Canon, and runs the risk of being useless if the AF motor fails (although it can still be sold for parts). But the difference between it and the f/2 is around £2k at present prices.

I use my 200mm f1.8 for discerning clients... i.e. non soccer mom types... the corporate clients who hire me for my expertise... who don't want some idiot showing up with a pop-up flash on their Rebel... who actually recognize good results.. My 200mm f1.8 is also a sales tool... When I use that lens, people notice that I am the elite Professional.. not the guy with the Sigma who shoots for nothing... and is a weekend warrior..

That aside..... the 200mm f1.8 produces an image like nothing else for corporate clients of mine.... when used in conjunction with a Can 5D3.. The focus is critical... you have to get it right... I usually use mine at f2.0... but I still like to use it at f1.8, and the "Pop" it produces... is unlike anything else available. I can show you examples... many.. maybe if you ask I can put together a private linked URL gallery on my Smugmug for you to see unmarked/ unedited proofs.

I bought mine used from Cham Camera in S. Korea about 10 years ago for 5K.. I had to wire him the money... He was faithful and has also sold two other friends of mine the same lens... I'm happy with mine... It's my fav for portraits.... BUT if you want to save money.... I use the 135mm f2.0 and that is also a great lens... I use it now, in place of my 70-200mm f2.8 IS L..

Don't mean to offend or insult... I just do what I do and say what's on my mind.

Cheers!

 

[YuengLinger]

Hey all. This is partly a bit of fun, as I'm well aware you shouldn't let a forum make big decisions for you. However, that being said, I'd like your input...

The question is, is the 200 f/1.8L a good choice for someone who *doesn't* do much portraiture?

I've lusted after it for many years. The other lenses I dreamt of, one by one, I have bought - some of them I subsequently sold. I'm not sentimental and will happily sell something I haven't used enough. The 85L was dreamy but got too little use - a little too bulky, too much CA, and above all, too valuable to keep, when I could spend that on other things. On the other hand, my MP-E will be with me forever.


bla bla bla...


I could sell it and get a new Sigma with cash to spare. But I'll always dream of the Canon 200L f/1.8L. I can't afford its f/2 IS replacement in the foreseeable future. I know the 1.8 has been used for some high end astro projects, and is a superlative portrait lens. But what about the rest of the time? It's front-heavy, and big, but how is it for other uses? Flowers, landscapes, insects, architecture. With an extension tube if necessary.

All thoughts welcome. Thanks!

PS I'm well aware the 1.8 is no longer supported by Canon, and runs the risk of being useless if the AF motor fails (although it can still be sold for parts). But the difference between it and the f/2 is around £2k at present prices.

I use my 200mm f1.8 for discerning clients... i.e. non soccer mom types... the corporate clients who hire me for my expertise... who don't want some idiot showing up with a pop-up flash on their Rebel... who actually recognize good results.. My 200mm f1.8 is also a sales tool... When I use that lens, people notice that I am the elite Professional.. not the guy with the Sigma who shoots for nothing... and is a weekend warrior..

That aside..... the 200mm f1.8 produces an image like nothing else for corporate clients of mine.... when used in conjunction with a Can 5D3.. The focus is critical... you have to get it right... I usually use mine at f2.0... but I still like to use it at f1.8, and the "Pop" it produces... is unlike anything else available. I can show you examples... many.. maybe if you ask I can put together a private linked URL gallery on my Smugmug for you to see unmarked/ unedited proofs.

I bought mine used from Cham Camera in S. Korea about 10 years ago for 5K.. I had to wire him the money... He was faithful and has also sold two other friends of mine the same lens... I'm happy with mine... It's my fav for portraits.... BUT if you want to save money.... I use the 135mm f2.0 and that is also a great lens... I use it now, in place of my 70-200mm f2.8 IS L..

Don't mean to offend or insult... I just do what I do and say what's on my mind.

Cheers!

Were you jilted by a "soccer mom"? Wow, what a bitter, ridiculous cheap-shot.

 

[Jopa]

I use my 200mm f1.8 for discerning clients...

Can you please post a few shots made with the 200/1.8? Very curious to see what it can do... Thanks!

 

[Viggo]

Over here it's basically the same price for used 200 f2 and the even rarer 1.8.

I use mine for everything because it's that great. Portraits, full body or headshot it is AMAZING . Sometimes I like to have my subject smaller in the frame and the pop and look is beyond anything else. It shines at every task you throw it at.

And so ridiculously good over the entire frame you can do really weird/fun compositions with subjects in the extreme corners with no loss of image quality. I use it for sports and action, stronist work, the kids in the living room, food photography, nature landscape... anything.

 

[JoeWhitnallPhotography]

With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

 

[Viggo]

With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's :

 

[Pookie]

With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's :

I'd borrow or buy a 200 f/2L in a second if I could.

Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy right now and don't know any elite professionals with discerning clients to borrow from. I mostly know the "soccer mom" types. You know, idiots with pop-up flashes on their Rebels. Don't tell anybody though. I'm ashamed to hang around them. They aren't cut from the same cloth as I am. I'm silk. They're just plain old weekend warrior cotton. :-[ :-[ :-[

However, if you ask nicely I'll send you a link to my Smugmug page.

Emphasis on smug.

Owning the 200 f/2 and 70-200 II... If you say there is a huge difference in images from both you're lying to yourself. Honestly the 200 f/2 is a great lens but is it worth the cost over the 70-200...nope. The 70-200 is way more useful and produces images of equal quality. I find most that own this lens own it for the "oooo and ahh" factor rather than utility. I can say I have it because I wanted it not because I needed it... in reality the 70-200 come out to play 90% of the time and the 200 stays in the case at home.

And Charles, I'll probably be selling most of my Canon gear over the next year or so... including my like new 200 f/2. Call me anytime you might want to take a big white for yourself...

Oh, and shoot me your smugmug link... I'd like to see it. www.davidkm.com

 

[danski0224]

With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It is that much better.

 

[Viggo]

With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's :

I'd borrow or buy a 200 f/2L in a second if I could.

Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy right now and don't know any elite professionals with discerning clients to borrow from. I mostly know the "soccer mom" types. You know, idiots with pop-up flashes on their Rebels. Don't tell anybody though. I'm ashamed to hang around them. They aren't cut from the same cloth as I am. I'm silk. They're just plain old weekend warrior cotton. :-[ :-[ :-[

However, if you ask nicely I'll send you a link to my Smugmug page.

Emphasis on smug.

Owning the 200 f/2 and 70-200 II... If you say there is a huge difference in images from both you're lying to yourself. Honestly the 200 f/2 is a great lens but is it worth the cost over the 70-200...nope. The 70-200 is way more useful and produces images of equal quality. I find most that own this lens own it for the "oooo and ahh" factor rather than utility. I can say I have it because I wanted it not because I needed it... in reality the 70-200 come out to play 90% of the time and the 200 stays in the case at home.

And Charles, I'll probably be selling most of my Canon gear over the next year or so... including my like new 200 f/2. Call me anytime you might want to take a big white for yourself...

Oh, and shoot me your smugmug link... I'd like to see it. www.davidkm.com

If you can't see the difference in those two lenses why even own it? It's a BIG difference in bokeh, color, distortion, sharpness and microcontrast, all of which add up to that pop I'm always looking for. I did a comparison with the 70-200 f2.8 and 135 L and 200 f2 to see the actual difference in pop and that stop REALLY makes a difference. And 70-200 II is very limited in terms of which backgrounds can look great, while the f2 makes everything look superb.

To most people the price difference isn't worth it, I don't care about that, but say the difference isn't there is just not true. I have shot the same places and subjects with all my lenses and the one I like second best after the 200 is the Zeiss 100 which share a lot of the qualities I want with the f2.

We all have different wants, I don't lug around the f2 because people think it looks cool, I use it despite being noticed a lot.

 

[Pookie]

With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's :

I'd borrow or buy a 200 f/2L in a second if I could.

Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy right now and don't know any elite professionals with discerning clients to borrow from. I mostly know the "soccer mom" types. You know, idiots with pop-up flashes on their Rebels. Don't tell anybody though. I'm ashamed to hang around them. They aren't cut from the same cloth as I am. I'm silk. They're just plain old weekend warrior cotton. :-[ :-[ :-[

However, if you ask nicely I'll send you a link to my Smugmug page.

Emphasis on smug.

Owning the 200 f/2 and 70-200 II... If you say there is a huge difference in images from both you're lying to yourself. Honestly the 200 f/2 is a great lens but is it worth the cost over the 70-200...nope. The 70-200 is way more useful and produces images of equal quality. I find most that own this lens own it for the "oooo and ahh" factor rather than utility. I can say I have it because I wanted it not because I needed it... in reality the 70-200 come out to play 90% of the time and the 200 stays in the case at home.

And Charles, I'll probably be selling most of my Canon gear over the next year or so... including my like new 200 f/2. Call me anytime you might want to take a big white for yourself...

Oh, and shoot me your smugmug link... I'd like to see it. www.davidkm.com

If you can't see the difference in those two lenses why even own it? It's a BIG difference in bokeh, color, distortion, sharpness and microcontrast, all of which add up to that pop I'm always looking for. I did a comparison with the 70-200 f2.8 and 135 L and 200 f2 to see the actual difference in pop and that stop REALLY makes a difference. And 70-200 II is very limited in terms of which backgrounds can look great, while the f2 makes everything look superb.

To most people the price difference isn't worth it, I don't care about that, but say the difference isn't there is just not true. I have shot the same places and subjects with all my lenses and the one I like second best after the 200 is the Zeiss 100 which share a lot of the qualities I want with the f2.

We all have different wants, I don't lug around the f2 because people think it looks cool, I use it despite being noticed a lot.

A HUGE difference... master of observation that you are missed that point. Not a huge difference. And you are lying to yourself when you call it a BIG difference. I could put up load of shots between it and a 135L and a 70-200 and I'd bet you can't pick just the 200 f/2 out of the bunch. Just do a image search and see for yourself.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens but is it THE portrait lens you say it is... nope, just another in the list. And as far as you getting anymore out of it than say the 70-200, nope. Let see your images with it !!! Let's see you show something that a 70-200 can't do... I'd love to see it as you say you're an owner with stellar results. I am an owner and have shown 200 f/2 images here and I'm saying no, not a huge difference between the two lenses. Show me some and I'll show you a handful of images with 200 f/2's mixed in and your "bokeh, color, distortion, sharpness and microcontrast" is total farce.

Let's see it...

 

[YuengLinger]

With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's :

I'd borrow or buy a 200 f/2L in a second if I could.

Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy right now and don't know any elite professionals with discerning clients to borrow from. I mostly know the "soccer mom" types. You know, idiots with pop-up flashes on their Rebels. Don't tell anybody though. I'm ashamed to hang around them. They aren't cut from the same cloth as I am. I'm silk. They're just plain old weekend warrior cotton. :-[ :-[ :-[

However, if you ask nicely I'll send you a link to my Smugmug page.

Emphasis on smug.

Owning the 200 f/2 and 70-200 II... If you say there is a huge difference in images from both you're lying to yourself. Honestly the 200 f/2 is a great lens but is it worth the cost over the 70-200...nope. The 70-200 is way more useful and produces images of equal quality. I find most that own this lens own it for the "oooo and ahh" factor rather than utility. I can say I have it because I wanted it not because I needed it... in reality the 70-200 come out to play 90% of the time and the 200 stays in the case at home.

And Charles, I'll probably be selling most of my Canon gear over the next year or so... including my like new 200 f/2. Call me anytime you might want to take a big white for yourself...

Oh, and shoot me your smugmug link... I'd like to see it. www.davidkm.com

Your opinion is no surprise, considering you seem to take the same photo over and over again. :

 

[Viggo]

Well, "master of observation" is perhaps a stretch, but I test my gear extensively so yes I know the difference between those three lenses. That's not to say you can't take a crappy shot with f2 and optimize the 70-200 shot and say "ha ha". That's no point.

An example I can give is that I shoot my sons soccer games, and I put them all in the same album. Some of the other parents who comment on them suddenly said, "wow, how did you edit those shots, they look different and nice". That was the exact game I got my (second) 200 f2 after using the 70-200 for all the previous games.

So if non interested in photo mom and dads call the difference, perhaps it's just you then...

 

[arthurbikemad]

I love my 200/2 but its a pain for what I use it for, namely portraits. Its MFD is hard to live with and strongly limits where you can use it, I think for what it was built for it surely would shine i.e indoor sports etc. Does it have that "Canon Magic"? I think it does, worth the money, well I'd not think about the money, if you have a desire for it buy it and live the dream as you can always sell it, but as said (I think) I'd avoid the 1.8 and get the F2.0 for service reasons if any. I also have the 70-200Mk2 and side by side I'd say the 200/2 will give you the look, i.e that classic 200/2 compressed look I find hard to match with any other lens. There is no doubt its one of Canon's finest lumps of glass, even though I hardly ever use mine I just can't part with it, those rare times I have the space to use it I do, I don't have a 135/2 but I am told many times it's a better option and MUCH cheaper, it's another classic Canon lens for a similar look. Only other issues I have are size and weight of the 200/2 and it draws a LOT of unwanted attention! I find the best way to solve this kind of problem is buy it, hire it, live with it, get it out of your system one way or another haha

 

[Viggo]

I love my 200/2 but its a pain for what I use it for, namely portraits. Its MFD is hard to live with and strongly limits where you can use it, I think for what it was built for it surely would shine i.e indoor sports etc. Does it have that "Canon Magic"? I think it does, worth the money, well I'd not think about the money, if you have a desire for it buy it and live the dream as you can always sell it, but as said (I think) I'd avoid the 1.8 and get the F2.0 for service reasons if any. I also have the 70-200Mk2 and side by side I'd say the 200/2 will give you the look, i.e that classic 200/2 compressed look I find hard to match with any other lens. There is no doubt its one of Canon's finest lumps of glass, even though I hardly ever use mine I just can't part with it, those rare times I have the space to use it I do, I don't have a 135/2 but I am told many times it's a better option and MUCH cheaper, it's another classic Canon lens for a similar look. Only other issues I have are size and weight of the 200/2 and it draws a LOT of unwanted attention! I find the best way to solve this kind of problem is buy it, hire it, live with it, get it out of your system one way or another haha

Amen to that.

I bought my 200 f2 for a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS and 2500 usd and it's absolutely worth it. Is it worth the 7000 usd retail ? Not to me, but if it wasn't to anyone, how could I buy them used?

And at the last indoor soccer game I was at 12800-25600 iso, it would have been much worse at 51200 with a 2.8 ...

 

[scyrene]

Wow, a lot of responses, thanks!

If it's a good copy, I cannot understand how the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II could not be sharp enough for portrait work--even at 2.8. And it gives so many more composition options than a prime 200mm, which for some subjects actually compresses heads too much.

Sorry if I was unclear, I *don't* do portraits much, so that's not important. It's (unsurprisingly) softer than the macro lens it replaced, but I was a little shocked by how big a difference there was.

And I'm like you (OP), I do little if any portrait shooting at all. Yet the 70-200 is one of my most frequently used lenses. But for the uses you mentioned - flowers, insects - maybe the 180 3.5 Macro might be worth considering instead?

I should have said, the 180L is not under consideration as to all intents and purposes it has been superseded by the Sigma - which is 1/2 a stop faster and has IS. Canon's longest macro lens, although it is legendary in some respects, is a little out of date now.

Over here it's basically the same price for used 200 f2 and the even rarer 1.8.

Wow, really? The price difference here is vast, even for used f/2s.

---

The 135L has crossed my mind many times, however it's no better for astro work than what I currently have (except at 135mm obviously) as with extenders it goes to 189mm f/2.8 and 270mm f/4, which is hardly better than the 189mm f/2.8 the 70-200 does alone, and with an extender that goes to 280mm f/4. Ultimately, too, it's just too similar to the 100L macro.

Once again, the 200 f/2 IS is not under consideration, as it is ~£4500 new or used, and that is way beyond my budget. I am prepared to take the risk with the older model, which is around half that price (and I've thought about it for years, so it's not without forewarning!).

I think it's a matter of, buy the 200 1.8 and if I don't love it, sell it on in a few months. I would love to own one just once, and see what I can produce with it. But ultimately I suppose what I want is two different things - a good, sharp, probably image stabilised long macro lens, and a wide aperture long lens for astro work. Thanks for all the input anyhow

 

[Perio]

Get 135L or Zeiss 135APO and save a lot of money. 200L is too large, heavy, expensive and impractical.