200mm f/2.8 with IS?

[TOpeakTOP]

I'd love a 200mm with IS for outdoor portraits and candids, but the Canon f/2L is out of my price range (and huge). Are there any non-Canon options at f/2.8 or faster that compare favorably with L-glass? I may consider getting the 70-200 L 2.8 IS II soon, but its size, and the overlap with my 70-300L make it an imperfect solution. Any rumors of a future Canon 200 f2.8 prime with IS?

 

[Dylan777]

I doubt it. What about 135l or 85L?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Canon 200mm f/2.8L is a bargain, there is nothing else for that price, even at lower quality.

It has a $50 mail-in rebate right now.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129190-USA/Canon_2529A004AA_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2_8L.html

You can get a Sigma 180mm f/2.8 Macro with OS, but its more expensive, and, if it does not autofocus quickly or accurately, you will have a problem determining if its the lens or the camera, or a combination issue. Sigma had to reverse engineer Canon's AF system, and there is a huge history of issues.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837868-REG/Sigma_180mm_f_2_8_APO_Macro.html

 

[mackguyver]

If you ever plan to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I wouldn't bother with the lens, but otherwise it's an excellent choice. I'd take the 135 f/2 over it, though.

 

[dstppy]

+1 for the 200mm f/2.8 --- easily the highest set of keepers, percentage wise, in my bag.

There's a lot to be said for the low-weight of it as well.

 

[unfocused]

Yeah, I'd love a 200 f2.8 L with IS, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime, I got a refurbished 200 f2.8 L prime. I don't use it often, but when I do I really love it. I had one in the old days when I had an F1 and it was my second favorite lens next to the 24mm f2. 8. For sentimental reasons as much as anything else, I got the EF version. Cheap and well worth it.

I prefer that lens, combined with the 70-300 "L" to the 70-200 "L" because I tend to prefer the longer focal lengths

(I do wish it had better close focusing though)

Nothing quite like that wide-open (or near wide open) out of focus background to isolate a subject. It is an incredible portrait lens on a full frame. I am wondering, if you are shooting outdoor portraits and candids, why do you need IS.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I have not used the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS since January - I am loving the faster AF.
I can't really see the need for IS on a 200mm F2.8 - I no longer use IS on my 300mm F2.8. Now that cameras (well some anyway) can give excellent images at silly ISO's then the need for IS is becoming mute, also removing IS takes away a "dead" element in the focal path. Personally I would pay more for a new 200mm non IS (or any other focal length below 1000mm) lens that I would for an IS version. IS is a useful feature and has it's place - just not in my inventory.

 

[Besisika]

I would like one, especially if they make it in black.
I don't need the IS during photoshoot, but I really really miss it for video.
If it had IS, it would be my prefered lens at all time. Even now, I prefer it over my 85 1.2 and 135 f2 for photo but I have to put it back in the bag for video unless I am on a tripod. Monopod is a no go. For video, I use my macro 100 2.8L
I had the 70-200 but I sold it, and regret it big time because of IS.
Fixed focal length makes me think twice before taking a photo. Zoom makes me lazy and just shoot from whereever I am by zooming, then regret once get home looking at the photos.
I looked around and couldn't find any other IS-ed prime lens that can do the 200 2.8 does. If you have to have the IS I suggest buying the 70-200. At least you had the chance to work with the prime and you now know why you would shoot at 200 vs 135 or 70 for that matter.