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

[SJTstudios]

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.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

The evidence (as presented by you, that this lens is undersold) tells us that people prefer the versatility of a 70-200 zoom more than the seeming lure of 1 f-stop more light and the possible background blur with the bigger max aperture. They probably also prefer the IS on 70-200 f/4 IS which gives you 2-3 f-stop equivalent shutter speed leeway. The one f stop advantage of a bigger max aperture may not be that big a deal as it is sometimes made out to be. But my gut feeling is that the zoom versatility and IS on the tele side weigh in favour of the 70-200 zoom.

 

[Zv]

The evidence (as presented by you, that this lens is undersold) tells us that people prefer the versatility of a 70-200 zoom more than the seeming lure of 1 f-stop more light and the possible background blur with the bigger max aperture. They probably also prefer the IS on 70-200 f/4 IS which gives you 2-3 f-stop equivalent shutter speed leeway. The one f stop advantage of a bigger max aperture may not be that big a deal as it is sometimes made out to be. But my gut feeling is that the zoom versatility and IS on the tele side weigh in favour of the 70-200 zoom.

+1 for versatility and IS.

 

[Standard]

As mentioned in another similar thread, I own the 200L f/2.8 II. And I suspect I may be one of only a handful of people in this forum. The key advantages of this lens for me over any of the 70-200mm zoom lenses are weight, size and color, which makes it more discreet and easier to use on the streets (therefore more useful for my shooting style) than its larger siblings. The obvious downsize of this lens, as is of any prime lenses, is versatility. However, I rarely find this to be an issue. I also own the 70-200L f/4 IS but I use that mainly for landscape photography, in situations where changing out a prime lens isn't ideal, ie. in inclement weather such as in middle of a snowstorm or in a dusty/dirty environment.

 

[PeterJ]

+2 for versatility and IS. But if you want a 200mm lens at f/2.8 on a budget go for it. I shoot a lot at f/2.8 and 200mm but personally wouldn't buy a non-IS at that focal length. But if you're always shooting from a sturdy tripod or at high shutter speeds I'm sure you'll love it.

I see a happy owner has responded while I was typing .

 

[paul13walnut5]

@RAKAMRAK

The one f stop advantage of a bigger max aperture may not be that big a deal as it is sometimes made out to be.

It often isn't in terms of exposure in good light, and at the 200mm may not even be all that apparent in terms of depth of field.

Where f2.8 comes into it's own, particularly for sports or nature photographers - a key market for this kind of lens - is the extra AF performance.

The lens is a stop brighter, which assists AF in any case, but all EOS DSLRs from the humble T3 to the 1DX and everything in between have added AF sensitivity with an f2.8 or faster lens. In some cases this makes the difference between a point being single axis or dual axis. Do bear in mind that even if you rarely shoot wide open, at f2.8, the lens is still at f2.8 during focusing and will stop down to your selected aperture when taking the image.

I had the 200mm 2.8 II and used it primarily with an XTi (9 point AF, only one cross type - the centre) and got some really excellent results from this lens on such a basic camera (lens focus limiter is useful, Ai Servo, centre AF point) I used it briefly on my 7D and with the camera set up properly and a couple of seconds lead tracking I was getting hit rates of 8/8 at 8fps.

It's a truely excellent lens.

But my 70-200 f2.8L isn't that far behind it at 200, and gives me the 70- range as well, which is useful for my video work.

For stills only I would have the 200mm again in a heartbeat. Much faster to use, by no giving you the excuse to fiddle with the zoom, but as video is important to me I use the zoom, which I actually see as a compromise in a way.

My take: Extra aperture is big new, IS is not. For me, although I know many others disagree.

 

[Loswr]

In general, today's consumer wants zoom lenses (with the exception of the cheap primes, bought mainly because of the low cost). Talking about the market as a whole, not the small segment of it in here.

I had the 200/2.8L II for a while, agree that it's a great lens. Excellent IQ, and the longest f/2.8 lens available short of spending thousands.

Besides a larger aperture for less $, one other big reason for getting primes is the IQ is traditionally better than zooms. The 70-200/2.8L IS II turned tradition on its head, with IQ as good as primes in the range, including the 200/2.8. I sold my 200/2.8 after getting the 70-200 II, which I prefer for....versatility and IS.

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

Its a prime, and Primes always sell less.

 

[bdunbar79]

According to some reviewers, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is sharper at f/2.8 at 200mm than the 200 f/2.8 prime lens.

 

[Imagination_landB]

Go to the digital picture and you'll see. the 70-200II is sharper at 200 2.8.

 

[jthomson]

As mentioned in another similar thread, I own the 200L f/2.8 II. And I suspect I may be one of only a handful of people in this forum..

I also own this lens. Bought it second hand when funds were scarce. Never seen the need to replace it with a zoom.

 

[Kernuak]

I've been very tempted by the 200 f/2.8 MkII several times because it is a third of the price of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII. It has only been the lack of IS and the fact that the 70-200 MkII turned traditional thinking in terms of sharpness that has given me pause, because one of the potential uses would be on a beanbag in a dark environment, where I would be waiting for the animal to pause. Of course in a hide, the small size (and dark colour) of the prime could also be very useful.

 

[jsbraby]

I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and the 200 F2.8 L II; I like them both and I use them both, although for slightly different tasks.

What I like about the 200 2.8 L II is the size (small), weight (light) and price/performance. And the fixed focal length. I'm currently using it primarily as a tube lens behind Mitutoyo infinity corrected microscope objectives. The zoom is a PITA as a tube lens.

Outside of that, I use the 200 on my 7D and the 70-200 on the 5D3 for zoos/wildlife with relatively short viewing distances. But if I "might kinda want something around 200 or 300mm", the 200 II goes in my bag and the zoom stays home. The 1.5 pound difference feels much bigger when carrying it around for a day.

Although for many people, the convenience of a zoom is probably worth the price and weight difference.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I like prime lenses, its just that, for me, the 200mm focal length is seldom used. I love my 135mm L, but a longer focal length is too long. Of course, I do occasionaly use long focal lengths, just not enough to justify buying a dedicated lens at 200mm.

 

[Shermanstank]

The 200 f/2.8L II is a great lens for being discreet. I currently live in New York City and whenever I feel the area where I will be shooting is a bit shady, I do bring the 200 f/2.8L II prime instead of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

Every lens has a purpose for different situations. The 200 prime is lightweight, discreet and has superb IQ.

It's worth every penny IMHO.

Sherwin

 

[unfocused]

I once had the FD version of this lens and loved it. I've been tempted many times to buy this lens, but keep holding off in the hopes that Canon will introduce an IS version. This lens with the current 4-stop IS would be worth twice the current price in my opinion. Given the age of this lens, there may be others like me waiting for an updated version.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

@paul13walnut5

From many discussions that I have read here on CR, I know and agree completely to whatever you have written. Do not get me wrong there. I have also seen some photos by this lens and they were amazingly sharp. It is definitely a good or very good lens.

But my reply was solely to the questions asked by OP, and the evidence presented by OP himself/herself. He did not ask for the relative benefit of 200mm L 2.8 II over other smaller max aperture lenses. He just said that he knows or thinks that this lens is undersold in spite of being what it is. So from that I drew the conclusion that seemed natural to me, that most photogs prefer other advantages than those provided by this lens (which are so nicely put together by you). If I have to relate my reply to your reply, then I would have to say not many are sports photographers who could take advantage of the AF issue pointed by you. So many others prefer the zoom advantage as you have acknowledged as well.

The fact (as claimed by OP) that this lens sells less also points to the probable scenario where many photogs do not really understand/care about the "only horizontal" or "only vertical" AF system of their camera's central points. Again we come back to the situation where not many need to photograph fast moving subjects (like sports photogs). So if occasionally there camera fails to AF on something, it is probably not even noticed. Therefore for this crowd (probably including me) bigger max aperture is not a big deal. For me (and for this crowd) the benefit of zoom and IS (of say 70-200 f/4 IS) overwhelmingly weighs against the few times I may miss AF.

Having said that, I will agree with you in that I disagree with you about the benefit of IS: for me it is a big deal. I benefit a lot from IS due to the type of subjects I generally photograph. But that is a personal issue altogether, and has nothing to do with the factual assertions of OP.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@RAKAMRAK

Agreed, also. It's a broad church, with many different nuts and many different ways of cracking them.

For a lot of folk the stop difference isn't a big deal on paper, what a lot of folk don't realise is that the faster aperture affects the operation of the camera in ways other than exposure.

I was making a general point, prompted by your reasonable assertion, which I hope you haven't taken personally, as that was not my intention, and would apologise if thats the case.

Cheers.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

@RAKAMRAK

Agreed, also. It's a broad church, with many different nuts and many different ways of cracking them.

For a lot of folk the stop difference isn't a big deal on paper, what a lot of folk don't realise is that the faster aperture affects the operation of the camera in ways other than exposure.

I was making a general point, prompted by your reasonable assertion, which I hope you haven't taken personally, as that was not my intention, and would apologise if thats the case.

Cheers.

Not at all. I mean there was nothing to take offense. :-\ Most of the times the exchange of opinions and ideas in CR are quite pleasurable, enjoyable, and good learning experience.

You were forwarding your opinion as I was mine. I have learnt a lot of stuff from many of your comments in different topics here.

May be I wrote so much in the reply that it seemed that I have been offended :-\. On top of that there may be some mistake in my usage of English as well (which is my second language). I should use more emoticons..... ;D

 

[telephonic]

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.

You say why, I'll chime in on similar note as many others. The smaller 200 is not a zoom, it's not white (aka. not cool), and probably not many user of the lens you mentioned realise the benefit of AF speed gained by upgrading to f/2.8.

I own this lens for almost 2 years, and this is "my precious" (for its price and its quality). I had the dilemma whether to take this or 70-200/4. Both has no IS, but I jumped on the smaller 200 because:

it's black (inconspicuous; still a head-turner with its hood on, though)
it's lighter (must check the numbers though, but on 20D, its light enough in my feeble hand),
it's prime.

Virtually against most people's logic behind the move to 70-200. But why go mainstream? 8)