Review - Canon EF 200 f/2L IS

Status
Not open for further replies.
dpollitt said:
I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of tea ::)

Please, keep them a bit more technical!

Sorry, I thought it would be funny (and seeing as I only own the one equivalent tele for comparison... feel free to crop that part out with your imagination).
 
Upvote 0
JVLphoto said:
dpollitt said:
I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of tea ::)

Please, keep them a bit more technical!

Sorry, I thought it would be funny (and seeing as I only own the one equivalent tele for comparison... feel free to crop that part out with your imagination).

Well, I appreciated the joke. And I still want one of those mugs! It's a shame Canon only made them as a one-off for that one show.

On the subject of the lens...I'm sure I'd absolutely love to have one, but I'm also struck by the trend towards slower and slower lenses, even in the top-of-the-line gear.

The previous incarnation of this lens was f/1.8. Yes, f/2 is still wicked fast for a 200mm lens, but it sure would have been nice to have seen it stay at f/1.8 -- or even go the extra half-stop the other direction to f/1.4! Sure, it'd make a big-and-heavy-and-expensive lens bigger and heavier and more expensive...but I bet most people willing to put up with the size, weight, and cost of this lens would gladly give up a bit more size, weight, and money for that extra stop.

It's not just the 200 that's going backwards. The top-of-the-line 50 today is only f/1.2. It used to be f/1.0, and Canon even made an f/0.95. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next L 50 is f/1.4.

The new Great White is the 200-400 -- but it's only f/4, and slows all the way down to f/5.6 when you use the teleconverter. I'm sorry, but a 280 f/5.6 lens is hardly impressive, even if it's got great image quality. (Yes, yes -- you'd shoot at 280 without the TC engaged...but, still.)

Canon is doing some amazing things in reducing the weight of the Great Whites. They're currently investing the dividends of that research in giving us the same lenses at lower weights, and that's a good thing. I'd also like to see them keep the weight the same as before but offer that much more lens for the same weight.

Who's up for a 12-pound 400mm f/1.8?

Cheers,

b&
 
Upvote 0
TrumpetPower! said:
The previous incarnation of this lens was f/1.8. Yes, f/2 is still wicked fast for a 200mm lens, but it sure would have been nice to have seen it stay at f/1.8 -- or even go the extra half-stop the other direction to f/1.4! Sure, it'd make a big-and-heavy-and-expensive lens bigger and heavier and more expensive...but I bet most people willing to put up with the size, weight, and cost of this lens would gladly give up a bit more size, weight, and money for that extra stop.

The size weight and money expenditure of going to a 200mm 1.4 would be more than just a "bit." (Also, going from f/1.8 to 1.4 is 2/3 stop, not 1/2.) I presume the front element on such a lens would be roughly the same diameter as a 400mm f/2.8, and I don't even want to speculate on the weight. Way too much bulk for 200mm reach, in my view.

I know others, especially portrait folks, like to take shallow depth of field to the extreme, but for me, apertures larger than f/2.8 aren't really for actually shooting photos, but for easier manual focus. Sure, I'd gladly use a 200mm f/2.0, as it would make my hand and eye a manual focusing machine, but I would only actually use f/2.0 in extreme low-light circumstances. (I owned a Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 back in my Nikon days in the '80's -- great for night football on a dingy high school field with Tri-X film pushed to 3200.)

TrumpetPower! said:
It's not just the 200 that's going backwards. The top-of-the-line 50 today is only f/1.2. It used to be f/1.0, and Canon even made an f/0.95. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next L 50 is f/1.4.

The f/0.95, I believe, was an old rangefinder camera lens, and no such lens was ever in the EF lineup, or even in the FD lens range as far as I know. The EF 50mm f/1.0 seems most likely to have been a "look what we can do!" kind of lens for Canon, more for their P.R. than for any practical use by working photographers. I'm sure I have NEVER seen one of those in the wild, only at at the odd trade show or convention. I feel the same way about the 85mm f/1.2 (which has much the same design as the 50mm f/1.0). Extreme poor handling on the 85mm f/1.2 makes is a lens I'd NEVER buy, but I have rented on occasion and do see them in use from time to time.

I'd be hard pressed to call going from f/1.8 to f/2.0 or from f/1.0 to f/1.2 a "step backwards."

TrumpetPower! said:
Who's up for a 12-pound 400mm f/1.8?

Ummm. . . No thanks.
 
Upvote 0

jasonsim

Hobbyist
Dec 23, 2011
229
1
46
Raleigh, NC
I liked my Canon 200mm f/2L IS, but when I found a absolute gem Canon 200mm f/1.8L for half the price I sold the f/2L.

Sample from the f/1.8L:

7483980890_2370131a4e_z.jpg


7859570884_161ffa5fc6_z.jpg


Sample from the f/2L:

6160402006_b3bf631538_z.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Quasimodo

Easily intrigued :)
Feb 5, 2012
977
2
51
Oslo, Norway
www.500px.com
elflord said:
Canon Rumors said:

How well does this lens work with teleconverters ? I looked at the pictures at thedigiticalpicture.com and it seems that at least in the center, stopped down one stop it stands up pretty well against the 300mm f/4 and the 400mm f/5.6.

To my unskilled eyes it looks good with my 2xIII. I do not have the 1,4xIII.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.