EF 200mm f2 , how much do you use it and for what?

[Viggo]

Hi guys!

Do you feel the 70-200 f2,8 II gets more use than the 200 (if you own both) or is the 200 SO awesome you find uses for it anyway?

I love the 70-200 II, but always had a thing for the 200 f2, but never owned it. I owned the 300 f2.8 (so I'm used to the weight), but that was too long for me.

And forget, "if you really need the extra stop" I want it if it's awesome as it looks ;D

Thanks!

 

[K-amps]

Do you really need an extra stop?

I am in the same boat... OI have about 6-7k to spend... I also already have the 70-200 mk.ii, but always had a thing for the 200 F2, but am leaning towards the 300 2.8ii

 

[Dylan777]

Do you really need an extra stop?

I am in the same boat... OI have about 6-7k to spend... I also already have the 70-200 mk.ii, but always had a thing for the 200 F2, but am leaning towards the 300 2.8ii

+1...or 400mm f2.8 IS version I - Version II is even better ;D ---- except the price tag :-[

 

[Smurf1811]

I've got both....i use the 70-200 more, but the 200 2.0 makes the money shots

It is so much better in everything. The bokeh is a tream come true. It's even better than the 85 1.2 and the 135 2.0.

 

[Quasimodo]

I would not look to much after a 200/2.0. The 70-200/2.8 ISmk2 is so good at 200mm that 200/2.0 feels very expensive in comparison and the result I get from the zoom and prime is very similar at 2,8 with a 5dmk2.
The 200/2.0 from Canon is not in my eyes good as the 300/2.8IS , and when I compared Canon 200/2,0 and the Nikon 200/2.0 the Nikon lens was better.

I use the 200/2 for portraits only. It is incredible, but as you mention the 300/2.8L II blows you away. I just used it this holiday and it is a droolworthy lens I will never afford It is even very fast with the 2xIII (this was on a 1DX, so the additional battery power might have contributed to the speed).

 

[bdunbar79]

Are you kidding? It's one of Canon's sharpest, if not the sharpest, lens at f/2. I use it for indoor sports or even for outdoor if I know I don't want to shoot shorter than 200. My copy is sharper (and I can tell when I print 8x10) than the 70-200L II IS at 200. When I do golf I take my 400 f/2.8, 200 f/2, and 70-200.

 

[retina]

I would not look to much after a 200/2.0. The 70-200/2.8 ISmk2 is so good at 200mm that 200/2.0 feels very expensive in comparison and the result I get from the zoom and prime is very similar at 2,8 with a 5dmk2.
The 200/2.0 from Canon is not in my eyes good as the 300/2.8IS , and when I compared Canon 200/2,0 and the Nikon 200/2.0 the Nikon lens was better.

Given the price and it's extreme sharpness wide open, you should be shooting at f/2 exclusively with it.
So stopping it down to f/2.8 and comparing to the zoom is kinda pointless really.

It's a phenomenal lens that will set your work apart from the rest and put a very big smile on your face when looking at the results.
It's a huge investment but you will amaze your clients and higher your earnings too
I have the zoom as well but if I had the cash I would definitely go for it!

 

[Viggo]

Thanks all for your replies! Really appreciate it

 

[PavelR]

I've got both....i use the 70-200 more, but the 200 2.0 makes the money shots

It is so much better in everything. The bokeh is a tream come true. It's even better than the 85 1.2 and the 135 2.0.

+1
(I own also 70-200/2, 135/2, 85/1.4, but 200/2 is the only lens I go with, if I would like to go light ;-) )
(300/2.8 IS version I. sold -> at F 3.5-4 IQ comparable to 200/2 at F 2-2.8)

 

[luciolepri]

The 200/2 is one of my preferite Canon lenses ever. Its color rendition is wonderful and its bokeh is nothing less, even stopped down. Obviously, IQ is outstanding in every aspect already WO. That's just an amazing lens, as its price, weight and size suggest. I use it whenever I can.
Of course I use it much less than the 70-200/2,8 if I'm shooting events or stuff like that, but when I can take my time and I don't have to constantly move my equipment in length and breadth on my own, there's no doubt, I leave the zoom home. The only disadvantage of the prime, compared to the zoom, in my opinion, is the longer MFD.

 

[RLPhoto]

Portraits. It's the portrait king if you have space.

 

[Viggo]

Which one has the fastest and
Most accurate AF, 70200 mk2 or 200 f2?

I feel the the 70200 is faster by quite a bit compared to the 300 mk1. After spending a a
Great deal of time learning about the 200 f2, I can't really see anything that is better except the insane 3d look on the
Images. Hard to justify, still, that feel is hard to argue away.

Cons vs 70200 IMO :

Price, weight, same or "slower" AF. The need for f2 isn't there except for shallow
Dof. 1/1000s is easy to do at 12800 on poor light with the 2.8. Lack of versatility against
The zoom.

Pros. Insane 3D feel and pop. And that's all I got lol.

Ps, I really want to
Use it for a week, but nowhere to rent.

 

[No Mayo]

I recommend choosing the lens you need based on focal length first. The lure of an f2 aperture can be so tempting that I wonder if some may purchase this lens and permanently mount a 1.4 ext on it thus negating much of the value of this lens. I use my 70-200/2.8II more than my 200/2, but I really love them both for different reasons. There really is something magical about an image shot with it (200/2) wide open both in regards to sharpness and the quality of the out of focus background. Great for portraits and lowlight reach. I do not own a 300/2.8 but I do own (and love) the 400/2.8IS (the heavy one!). If you need the 300 reach, get the 300.

 

[eml58]

Are you kidding? It's one of Canon's sharpest, if not the sharpest, lens at f/2. I use it for indoor sports or even for outdoor if I know I don't want to shoot shorter than 200. My copy is sharper (and I can tell when I print 8x10) than the 70-200L II IS at 200. When I do golf I take my 400 f/2.8, 200 f/2, and 70-200.

Completely agree, nothing sharper in the range (200mm), murders the 70-200f/2.8 II and this is no slouch of a Lens either, but the 200f/2 is again a bit of a specialist Lens, like the 85f/1.2 or the 135f/2, having said that I use the 200f/2 a lot more than either the 85 or the 135, the 200f/2 @ f/2 is just Sharp, Crisp, Clear and a complete pleasure to use.

The 300f/2.8 II is also a wonderfully sharp Lens, I wouldn't like to pick between these two lenses re sharpness, they are both just about perfect, but the 200 is f/2, you want to clear a background, this is your Lens.

And I've shot the Nikon 200f/2 on the D800 just for comparison, and there's not a hope in hell the Nikon 200 is sharper, but that's an opinion and subjective, 1Dx + Canon 200f/2, Sharpness & Bokeh heaven.

Use ?? anything that requires 200mm and a perfectly blurred background, portraits of course, but I've used this Lens on Safari, just a great Lens

 

[Viggo]

Thanks a lot for the inputs. I had the 300 f2.8 but whilst I loved the IQ , it was indeed too long for me and ended up
Not being used. I'm a sucker for shallow dof and AF in combination. The 85 doesn't work for me and it lacks that amazing sharpness wide open, and it's fully understandable at f1.2. The 135 is neither here nor there for me and that focal works best for me with the 70-200 and IS. And that leaves me with my dream lens, the 200 f2.

I'm glad to see you're all very happy with it, and I think I will be also. I've seen many galleries with several of the superteles and the 70-200, and I can in 85-95% of the cases see when it's the f2, but harder to tell a 70-200, 300 and 400 apart, which tells me I'm on the right path.

My primes are gone so the money is there, can't wait to own this beast.

I saw a very cool nick for it, "Sauron", I thought that was pretty funny

 

[Viggo]

Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.

 

[Atonegro]

Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.

In the Netherlands they are selling, don't know where you are though...

http://link.marktplaats.nl/702492857

 

[Viggo]

Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.

In the Netherlands they are selling, don't know where you are though...

http://link.marktplaats.nl/702492857

Thanks man, it's a great price, unfortunately I live in Norway so I have to add 25% tax, so it totals about 600 eur more than the last used one here. But I'll def think about that one.

 

[Atonegro]

Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.

In the Netherlands they are selling, don't know where you are though...

http://link.marktplaats.nl/702492857

Thanks man, it's a great price, unfortunately I live in Norway so I have to add 25% tax, so it totals about 600 eur more than the last used one here. But I'll def think about that one.

Wow...That is almost 1000 euro....
Worth the trouble to come and fetch it, and smuggle it into Norway....

 

[Viggo]

Anyone here selling a used, mint 200 f2? PM me.

In the Netherlands they are selling, don't know where you are though...

http://link.marktplaats.nl/702492857

Thanks man, it's a great price, unfortunately I live in Norway so I have to add 25% tax, so it totals about 600 eur more than the last used one here. But I'll def think about that one.

Wow...That is almost 1000 euro....
Worth the trouble to come and fetch it, and smuggle it into Norway....

Lol, the thought has crossed my mind a few times. The problem is to smuggle a big case like that. And in Norway they're so strict so that if I leave for a vacation with my camera and get stopped on the way back, I HAVE to show a Norwegian reciept or else I will pay taxes on it, even if I bought it used 10 years ago and never had the reciept. CRAZY, so I can't take anything with me other than what I have the reciepts for.