Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal

[7enderbender]

Ive seen lately that this les is one of canons most undersold lenses, why.
The only reason I've heard why people haven't upgraded, is because most people with a 70-300 or 75-300 go to a 70-200 f4. But this lens is even cheaper, and it is 2.8.

That worked for me. Was one of the first EF lenses I bought. I didn't and don't want a 70-200 zoom and opted for a 135/200 combo instead. Don't tell Canon but I would've actually paid more for that prime pair then for 70-200 2.8LII. So I consider it a steal. And I like the fact that it doesn't have IS.

 

[Lnguyen1203]

I traded the 200f2.8 II for a 70-300L and don't regret it. The lens is pretty sharp under good light, but under low light, I found it was tough without IS, so the non IS negated the f2.8 for me. It's very light. Which is great or carrying around. I found, however, because it's so light, I kept forgetting that it is a 200mm lens and so etimes got blurry picture. I'm pretty happy itch my 70-300L under good light and appreciate the extra reach in a small light weight package.

 

[funkboy]

I've got a 189 f/2.8L.

Er, that is a 135 f/2L and a 1.4x TC .

Very versatile & portable setup, and you can leave the TC at home when you don't think you'll be needing it.

I sold the 70-200 f/4L non-IS zoom after I got the 135 & TC as the zoom just ended up not fitting in my bag when it came time to pack for a trip, & the 135L always came along.