200mm f/1.8L not for portraits

[NancyP]

Canon, or long-time Canon users, may recommend non-Canon repair facilities. Mechanical issues can be dealt with by the guys who service large format lenses and shutters. Electronics are the issue. If you are getting it solely for use at f/1.8, infinity for astrophotography, electronics don't matter. You'd find "infinity" and mark it on the barrel. You don't need autofocus. Better to make a Bakhtinov mask and manual-focus. Default aperture for unpowered USM lens is "wide open". Some scientific observatories (as opposed to hobbyist) have wide field scanning with arrays of either f/1.8 or f/2 200mm Canon lenses, at least one has an array of 400mm f/2.8 Canon lenses.

 

[Viggo]

Canon, or long-time Canon users, may recommend non-Canon repair facilities. Mechanical issues can be dealt with by the guys who service large format lenses and shutters. Electronics are the issue. If you are getting it solely for use at f/1.8, infinity for astrophotography, electronics don't matter. You'd find "infinity" and mark it on the barrel. You don't need autofocus. Better to make a Bakhtinov mask and manual-focus. Default aperture for unpowered USM lens is "wide open". Some scientific observatories (as opposed to hobbyist) have wide field scanning with arrays of either f/1.8 or f/2 200mm Canon lenses, at least one has an array of 400mm f/2.8 Canon lenses.

Don't think manual focus is possible if the lens's af is dead. Same focusing system like the 85 L.

 

[scyrene]

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

Manual focus lenses are absolutely not on my radar, sorry. I've used them before, but it's just not my style. Incidentally, that Zeiss is £1600 in the UK, and I can get the 200 1.8L for not much more than that.

I explained in the previous post why the 135L is not under consideration, but thanks.

 

[danski0224]

Any of the USM big whites, the 85mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.0 will not focus if the USM goes bad or even if the camera is powered off. Yes, power is required for manual focusing. There may a ccouple more specific lenses. The USM whites have a manual focus speed switch.

Except for the current 85mm and the recent STM lenses, none of the previous focus by wire lenses are serviced by Canon. Parts seem to be non existent, so repairs are questionable at best... until/unless someone takes a crack at making a replacement USM.

An extension tube does wonders to reduce the MFD of lenses.

 

[Luds34]

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...

Were your 70-200 shots not at 200mm perhaps? While I'm sure there is a difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 200mm I can't imagine it's much. Certainly not enough that casual observers seeing random, different shots is going to be completely blown away by the f/2 shots. There is plenty of compression at 200mm and with a background far off in the distance the bokeh is going to be insane at either of those apertures.

I just looked up one of my 200mm f/2.8 shots to give me an idea.

20150927-IMG_9907-70D by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

I'm sure the f/2 is an amazing lens, I just doubt if the difference is so great that casual observers would be able to see the difference. You know?

 

[Luds34]

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...

Personal question but, why are you selling all your Canon gear?

 

[Viggo]

As always, if you can't tell the difference or don't care, you saved a lot of money and you're happy. Don't think the difference is just sharpness : I won't ruin your love for the 70-200 II.

There is a reason Canon made the 200 f2.0..

 

[Pookie]

As always, if you can't tell the difference or don't care, you saved a lot of money and you're happy. Don't think the difference is just sharpness : I won't ruin your love for the 70-200 II.

There is a reason Canon made the 200 f2.0..

Sure there is but is it huge? No... and as most owners of both will tell you, the trade off is minimal. I understand you're going to defend you choice as the best EVER and advice GET IT, IT'S A MUST HAVE. But again, as an owner of both and as other owners of both will admit... not a huge difference. Go ahead and live the delusion to justify the purchase.

Let see your comparisons and when you do, I'll post up loads of images between the 135L, 70-200 and the f/2. The CR forum will be able to judge for themselves. I'm still waiting for your mystical f/2 shot that a 70-200 can't do or even the 135L can't do.

I'm telling you, as a wedding and commercial photographer I use all these lenses every week. The f/2 is nice, is it the end all be all of portrait lenses you MUST have because no one can live without... ABSOLUTELY NOT! The 70-200 is hands down a better value and IQ is right there with it. It is also far more practical.

And ArthurBikeMad is dead on with his assesment, pretty much mine exactly except I don't use mine for sports.

 

[Pookie]

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...

Personal question but, why are you selling all your Canon gear?

After years of only using Canon products for work I began to use an assortment of gear for wedding work over the last couple of years. The biggest change was a Pentax 645z, love it and MF. Now I use both film and digital MF . I've pre-ordered the new Fuji MF and once evaluated will chose between Pentax or Fuji. I'm now finding that Canon is good but not without trade-offs when comparing systems in real world circumstances. I'll keep some Canon gear but the bulk of it will be going to auction over the next year or so.

For personal work I still use some Canon bodies but I've also got quite a few Leica bodies (both film and digital) that I now prefer as EDC's.

 

[Luds34]

After years of only using Canon products for work I began to use an assortment of gear for wedding work over the last couple of years. The biggest change was a Pentax 645z, love it and MF. Now I use both film and digital MF . I've pre-ordered the new Fuji MF and once evaluated will chose between Pentax or Fuji. I'm now finding that Canon is good but not without trade-offs when comparing systems in real world circumstances. I'll keep some Canon gear but the bulk of it will be going to auction over the next year or so.

For personal work I still use some Canon bodies but I've also got quite a few Leica bodies (both film and digital) that I now prefer as EDC's.

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it. My guess was you were going MF or retiring.

The new Fuji GFX does look pretty intriguing. As a wedding photographer that has to shoot in a whole range of challenging situations, do you feel the MF cameras today fit the bill? I'm thinking action mostly, but even some of the low light situations. Since any medium format digital camera is clearly not in my own toy budget I'm a bit ignorant to those cameras. But my limited knowledge would tell me that many of those bodies don't have the AF capabilities of the standard "wedding" cameras from the likes of Canon and Nikon. Or are you using MF to compliment your other cameras? (although you implied you were unloading all/most your Canon gear)

 

[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!

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

Hence why I normally avoid contributing to topics on these kinds of forums, open to anyone with a camera.. Thank you for reminding me of that..

Cheers!