Anyone own the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II?

[pulseimages]

I have a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L non-IS lens now that is just too heavy to hand hold anymore and all I ever use it at is at 200mm when I do use it. I'm thinking of selling it and getting the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. Is this prime more manageable for hand held shooting? Thanks!

 

[Sporgon]

I have a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L non-IS lens now that is just too heavy to hand hold anymore and all I ever use it at is at 200mm when I do use it. I'm thinking of selling it and getting the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. Is this prime more manageable for hand held shooting? Thanks!

It is definitely more 'handy' that the xx-200 / 2.8 zooms, and about half the weight. I ended up going down the 85 - 135 - 200 prime route, because I wanted speed without weight, or at least not as much weight as an f2.8 70-200. It's all compromises of one sort or another. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is optically better than the primes. ( excluding 85/1.2).

I've been in photography for many years and I know how unnecessarily large, heavy gear becomes unpopular over time. But then you have to define unnecessarily....

 

[Dantana]

I have the 200 2.8 L II, and really like it. I went that route primarily based on cost and what other lenses I had at the time. I do like that it's smaller and lighter, though I haven't owned any of the 70-200 zooms to compare it to.

I just need to get out to use it fore often, but that's no fault of the lens.

 

[eli72]

I have it, and have used it on numerous occasions to shoot hockey from the stands. It is light and easy to hold (I have the tripod collar on mine, and rest the foot on my left hand). The best part about it is that in many arenas you are limited to a lens of no more than 6", and that lens is right at 6" mounted. Also, because it's black, it doesn't draw the same attention as the 70-200.
Here are a couple of examples.

 

[pulseimages]

I have it, and have used it on numerous occasions to shoot hockey from the stands. It is light and easy to hold (I have the tripod collar on mine, and rest the foot on my left hand). The best part about it is that in many arenas you are limited to a lens of no more than 6", and that lens is right at 6" mounted. Also, because it's black, it doesn't draw the same attention as the 70-200.
Here are a couple of examples.

Great images! Do you find that you have to shoot at high shutter speeds because of the lack of IS to obtain sharp images shooting hand held?

 

[yorgasor]

I have it, and have used it on numerous occasions to shoot hockey from the stands. It is light and easy to hold (I have the tripod collar on mine, and rest the foot on my left hand). The best part about it is that in many arenas you are limited to a lens of no more than 6", and that lens is right at 6" mounted. Also, because it's black, it doesn't draw the same attention as the 70-200.
Here are a couple of examples.

For sports, you need high speed anyway. IS doesn't do much good there. If you're going to be shooting things that are far away, a little bit of movement makes a big impact. So, you'll need to either work on your form to produce less shake or use higher shutter speeds. At f/2.8, that shouldn't be quite as hard as the consumer grade lenses in this range.

Great images! Do you find that you have to shoot at high shutter speeds because of the lack of IS to obtain sharp images shooting hand held?

 

[Aichbus]

I own it and I am very happy with it. If someone says it is optically inferior to the 70-200 II than that might be true in theory, but that doesn't show in practice. The only real drawback for me is the lack of IS. But apart from that it is a fantastic lens that also takes TCs very well. I use it on full frame and with my EOS-M, where it acts like a fast tele. I also own the EF-M 55-200, which by itself is a nice lens, but optically, they are 2 ligues apart.

 

[Cosmicbug]

A great lens that is light , compact and very sharp. Lack of IS is the only drawback! My comparison showed it to be sharper than the 70-200 zoom.
...
If 200mm is your thing then it is a great value addition to your kit.

 

[Nitroman]

Read the reviews on this great site : http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

Ps - I love mine

 

[COBRASoft]

I used to own one and replaced it by the 70-200 2.8 II IS (for the zoom and IS).
Nevertheless, the 200mm is a fantastic lens, even for portrait on fullframe. I always had tack sharp images with it and focus was very fast. IQ is on par with my new 70-200

 

[eli72]

I haven't used it for anything but sports, and typically I shoot at higher speeds to try to stop the action. Those were shot at ISO 2000, 1/1250 @ f3.2. I would generally not shoot handheld at less than 1/250 anyway given the 200mm focal length.

 

[noncho]

I had one and I liked it, but on APS-C is too long for portraits and too short for birds. I liked it for street and sports, on FF is great for portraits.

 

[Cory]

I have it and some of the volleyball shots at www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ were taken with it. My only comparison to the 70-200 2.8 IS II was when I bought the zoom and returned it after using it once. I found the prime image quality to be significantly nicer which was very unexpected. Of course, my shutter speed was always at 1/500 or 1/640 and I try to keep the shutter speed fast whenever using it. Have some pretty nice soccer shots with it too (that I'll soon process and post on my flickr page), but a zoom would be "better" overall for soccer; I think.

 

[Besisika]

My favorite lens after the 85 1.2
Good lens if you are comfortable with prime. I prefer it over 135 f2 whenever 2.8 is enough. It is long enough and yet doesn't draw attention. Very good for portrait, especially vertical, street events and some sports.
As many stated, lack of IS is obvious but that would remove it's advantages.

 

[skitron]

I've owned it concurrently with the 70-200 IS2, sold the 200 L II. Optically, they are about the same...pixel peeping comparisons would sway me one direction or the other depending on the shot, they are that close.

I miss the light weight, small size, black color, low cost of ownership. I don't miss the lack of IS and lack of zoom. It's definitely a trade off between these two choices. After lugging around the 70-200 and considering how much $ I have tied up in it, I almost wish I kept the 200 and sold the IS2 instead. They are that close. But for the time being, I'll keep enjoying the IS and zoom...and the upper body workout from lugging around the IS2...

If the IS2 is out of the picture for you, the 200 L II is a superb lens IMO if that's the length you want. Very fast AF, and IQ is in the top 3 Canon "bang for buck" category IMO. And yes, if you practice good holding and shutter button technique it is quite manageable shooting handheld. And of course a monopod is also an option that is still light weight an compact should you need it. And ditto the excellent results using it with a 1.4 TC III.

 

[sdsr]

If you use your 70-200 exclusively at 200, and don't need IS, yes, replace the zoom with the prime. Roger Cicala's brief comments seem about right:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-200mm-f2.8l-ii0

And if you care much about creamy blurred backgrounds, I suspect you'll find this at least as good as the 135L.

 

[Berowne]

Good Lens.