Rare lens damaged in shipping, what would you do?

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,397
456
Canada
#21
Basically just don't pack it like an idiot. The lens was wrapped in about one layer of bubble wrap (the small bubble type of wrap) and then put in a box with a bunch of those plastic air pillows. The box was a little bigger than the lens itself. When I initially took it out of the box, it was resting against one side of the box. By that I mean, a bunch of air pillows on top of it, but nothing cushioning one side of it aside from the one layer of bubble wrap it was in.

If it was me, I would use a box about twice as big as the lens, and I would absolutely entomb that thing in bubble wrap so it can't move around. The lens weighs like 6 pounds. If it's allowed to move around at all inside the box, it's gonna get damaged.
At work, we ship stuff off for repair in Pelican cases.... It makes it a lot harder to damage the stuff (Air Canada has a forklift operator that has managed to prove that it is not impossible). For shipping a lens one way, I would put it in a plastic bag, into a small box with soft foam, and then into a bigger box with more padding.
 
Nov 12, 2016
352
99
#22
I regretfully shipped the lens back yesterday. However, I couldn't resist at least taking it out for a quick spin.

My thoughts? Meh, probably not going to buy another one soon.

With the wide aperture, I expected this to be a pretty formidable lens in low light. The unfortunate reality is, it's really not. While f1.8 is fast, especially for a 200mm lens, it's still not an extremely wide aperture in the grand scheme of things. Combine this with the fact that it doesn't have IS, and you can't really go below 1/200sec hand held, which does not let in very much light. This is a lens that would probably gain new life if Canon ever releases a full frame camera with IBIS. As it stands though, as long as you aren't trying to stop fast motion, you can use the IS in the 70-200 f2.8 to pull in more light than this lens is capable of.

In addition, being a 200mm, you have to be fairly far away from your subject, unless you're just trying to take a head shot portrait. And the problem is, if you get to be very far away from your subject, the legendary bokeh that this lens is known for starts to dissipate.

If I did a lot of sports work, I might have a use for this, maybe with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter. It's also nice for close-up portraits where you want to blow the background out. But ultimately, while it's certainly a great lens for what it is, a 200mm 1.8 with no IS is just kind of a weird lens that I don't have a lot of use for, at least enough use to justify the price.

And good god is this thing heavy and conspicuous. I consider my 70-200 2.8 a pretty heavy lens to lug around when I'm on the move, and this weighs twice that. And that front element is very conspicuous. This could theoretically be a great street photography lens, except you look like an FBI investigator on a stake out when you start pointing this around in public.
 
Dec 13, 2010
3,541
153
#23
I regretfully shipped the lens back yesterday. However, I couldn't resist at least taking it out for a quick spin.

My thoughts? Meh, probably not going to buy another one soon.

With the wide aperture, I expected this to be a pretty formidable lens in low light. The unfortunate reality is, it's really not. While f1.8 is fast, especially for a 200mm lens, it's still not an extremely wide aperture in the grand scheme of things. Combine this with the fact that it doesn't have IS, and you can't really go below 1/200sec hand held, which does not let in very much light. This is a lens that would probably gain new life if Canon ever releases a full frame camera with IBIS. As it stands though, as long as you aren't trying to stop fast motion, you can use the IS in the 70-200 f2.8 to pull in more light than this lens is capable of.

In addition, being a 200mm, you have to be fairly far away from your subject, unless you're just trying to take a head shot portrait. And the problem is, if you get to be very far away from your subject, the legendary bokeh that this lens is known for starts to dissipate.

If I did a lot of sports work, I might have a use for this, maybe with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter. It's also nice for close-up portraits where you want to blow the background out. But ultimately, while it's certainly a great lens for what it is, a 200mm 1.8 with no IS is just kind of a weird lens that I don't have a lot of use for, at least enough use to justify the price.

And good god is this thing heavy and conspicuous. I consider my 70-200 2.8 a pretty heavy lens to lug around when I'm on the move, and this weighs twice that. And that front element is very conspicuous. This could theoretically be a great street photography lens, except you look like an FBI investigator on a stake out when you start pointing this around in public.
Well, if you bought it for low light I absolutely agree with you.

I’ve owned two 200 f2 and I bought it for bokeh and bokeh and AF demanding subjects. I used it to keep a 1/2000s shutter speed for action, don’t think I ever used it in less than daylight.

If you want my advice; Get yourself a 85 f1.4 IS instead. It’s the low light king.
 
Nov 12, 2016
352
99
#24
I don't know why I bought it... It was rare and interesting. But, I guess ultimately it wasn't meant to be. I probably won't get another one.

I have the 85 f1.2 II. It's a pretty old design. I'm sure the f1.4 is sharper, and the IS on an f1.4 lens is cool, but ultimately I'm pretty satisfied with the f1.2 for the 85mm focal length. Also at the rate Canon seems to be pushing to make new RF lens designs, I don't think I'll be buying too many more EF lenses. The 200 1.8 was an exception because I doubt we'll see a new version of that, even in RF mount since it's pretty clear telephoto lenses don't have a lot to gain with the new mount, and a super-fast 200mm is probably not high on the list of new lenses to design.
 
Likes: Viggo