Gear of Yesteryear: DPReviewTV reviews the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM

drhuffman87

Eos R, RF24-105 F4L, RF85 F2, EF200 F2.8L II
Nov 5, 2020
10
15
www.drhuffmanphoto.com
Here, here! I quite like my slim, light, 200/2.8 L II, which I picked up for a very reasonable sum on Ebay this time last year.

I love the 2.8 L II as well. I can carry my camera around without any extra effort and even carry it around with me in my messenger bag when I may or may not need it. If I was lugging around the 2.0, I would need a caddy.
 

goldenhusky

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 2, 2016
392
188
This and the 600 f/4L IS USM are the reason I am still thinking of Canon bodies. At this point I have about 9 EF lenses but no Canon bodies. I have shot the EF 200mm f/1.8 with my 5D4 and never felt like it focused on eye lashes. I did micro focus adjustment on Canon DSLRs. I know that is not a thing for mirrorless cameras. The two things I don't like about this lens is the weight and the MFD. The MFD is 18 feet for this lens. This is a fantastic lens for portraits and there is none like this in any other mounts that I am aware of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr
Jun 3, 2016
7
9
I purchased this lens about 20 years ago. It is still in good working order, except I have had to replace screws that hold the shade in place. My primary use is basketball, and other indoor sports. Never had a case, as I bought it used on eBay. One historical note: My understanding is that this lens has flourite elements in it, and Canon dc'd production due to environmental concerns at the factory, and replaced it with the 200mm F2.0L. I also understand there is someone who shoots alot of horse racing, and owns seven of these 1.8 lenses to use as remotes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnhenry

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,052
1,912
Leisure travel to eat Nasi goreng, sight seeing and a bit of shopping.

I've been to Indonesia (which has the same word for the same food) and that's good stuff. As was a lot of other things there.

I can't just casually fly there for nasi goreng, though...not when it's 30+ hours one way from Colorado USA!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dolina

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,209
285
31
34109
www.facebook.com
I've been to Indonesia (which has the same word for the same food) and that's good stuff. As was a lot of other things there.

I can't just casually fly there for nasi goreng, though...not when it's 30+ hours one way from Colorado USA!
I think it's just a 3+ hour trip for us though :)
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,052
1,912
I think it's just a 3+ hour trip for us though :)

Even at your airfare, though, it's still what pilots call the $100 hamburger. (You fly your private aircraft to another airport to eat the food in the pilot's restaurant. By the time you pay for fuel and wear and tear on the plane that hamburger cost you big bucks.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dolina

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,209
285
31
34109
www.facebook.com
Even at your airfare, though, it's still what pilots call the $100 hamburger. (You fly your private aircraft to another airport to eat the food in the pilot's restaurant. By the time you pay for fuel and wear and tear on the plane that hamburger cost you big bucks.)
I know people who do it worse than me.

Some just book at the airport for Hong Kong for lunch. Be back at home for dinner. Just because they want a Michelin star meal

Flying to the province cost $40 for a round trip. The check-in counter of the first flight often issues you a ticket for the return flight if you have no intention to have check-in baggage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Fischer

EOS 90D
Mar 17, 2020
146
82
This and the 600 f/4L IS USM are the reason I am still thinking of Canon bodies. At this point I have about 9 EF lenses but no Canon bodies. I have shot the EF 200mm f/1.8 with my 5D4 and never felt like it focused on eye lashes. I did micro focus adjustment on Canon DSLRs. I know that is not a thing for mirrorless cameras. The two things I don't like about this lens is the weight and the MFD. The MFD is 18 feet for this lens. This is a fantastic lens for portraits and there is none like this in any other mounts that I am aware of.
Nikon - and its cheaper.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,279
3,547
Irving, Texas
Nikon - and its cheaper.
Yeah well, if a person is a Canon shooter with Canon mount lenses, switching over to Nikon from Canon is absolutely not less expensive. These types of arguments are silly, in my opinion. The average person can’t afford to switch systems at will.

Besides, why would one desire “cheap” stuff as opposed to “quality “ stuff. I’m not saying Nikon makes cheap stuff, you did. Just pointing out the obvious misuse of the word “cheap”.
 

bluezurich

5D3 Curmudgeon
Dec 17, 2013
4,351
2,457
Yeah well, if a person is a Canon shooter with Canon mount lenses, switching over to Nikon from Canon is absolutely not less expensive. These types of arguments are silly, in my opinion. The average person can’t afford to switch systems at will.

Besides, why would one desire “cheap” stuff as opposed to “quality “ stuff. I’m not saying Nikon makes cheap stuff, you did. Just pointing out the obvious misuse of the word “cheap”.
This place doesn't look as near as fun... https://nikonrumors.com
 

Fischer

EOS 90D
Mar 17, 2020
146
82
Yeah well, if a person is a Canon shooter with Canon mount lenses, switching over to Nikon from Canon is absolutely not less expensive. These types of arguments are silly, in my opinion. The average person can’t afford to switch systems at will.
Think you need to re-read the thread again... ;)
 

bluezurich

5D3 Curmudgeon
Dec 17, 2013
4,351
2,457
Nikon - and its cheaper.
If you are referring to the Nikon f/2 200, it is the same price as the Canon. $5699. Is there a 1.8 Nikon I am not aware of?

If I did not get the gist of your post either, perhaps next time you could use more than 4 words to make your point.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

johnhenry

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 24, 2013
88
0
Good luck getting repair parts for it, if you can even find someone who will work on it. I loved my pristine late-year copy, but sold it to fund a 600 f/4.
It was awfully front-heavy, I understand the newish 200/f2 is much better in that regard.
The lens is mostly solid metal or glass inside.
 

johnhenry

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 24, 2013
88
0
I have a 200 1.8 and a 200 2.0 and love them both. The 1.8 works fantastic on the R5.
I bought the 2.0 because the 1.8 stopped focusing . After a few years I tried it on the R and it’s back.
Could someone please give the name of the repair place in Michigan?
I wa told they are not repairable.
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
When Canon stopped repairing them, companies dumped all their spare parts and I picked up a PAIR of NOS focus motors. AFAIK, these motors can be used in the 200mm f/1.8, the original 300mm f/2.8 and 600mmf/4 and the 1200mm f/5.6.
 

johnhenry

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 24, 2013
88
0
This and the 600 f/4L IS USM are the reason I am still thinking of Canon bodies. At this point I have about 9 EF lenses but no Canon bodies. I have shot the EF 200mm f/1.8 with my 5D4 and never felt like it focused on eye lashes. I did micro focus adjustment on Canon DSLRs. I know that is not a thing for mirrorless cameras. The two things I don't like about this lens is the weight and the MFD. The MFD is 18 feet for this lens. This is a fantastic lens for portraits and there is none like this in any other mounts that I am aware of.
The Minimum Focus Distance is 2.5m or 8.2 feet
 

johnhenry

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 24, 2013
88
0
I purchased this lens about 20 years ago. It is still in good working order, except I have had to replace screws that hold the shade in place. My primary use is basketball, and other indoor sports. Never had a case, as I bought it used on eBay. One historical note: My understanding is that this lens has flourite elements in it, and Canon dc'd production due to environmental concerns at the factory, and replaced it with the 200mm F2.0L. I also understand there is someone who shoots alot of horse racing, and owns seven of these 1.8 lenses to use as remotes.
Fluorite is grow in a laboratory, and has few concerns. They got rid of all their lead formula glass which included a lot of the high index stuff you need for certain elements. It was easier to design a new one at f/2.0
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,279
3,547
Irving, Texas
Think you need to re-read the thread again... ;)
Nah. The four words of your post are not hard to remember. Is there an adapter for Nikon F to either EF or RF with the necessary electrical connections for IS and AF? There are without the connections, so the Nikon lens becomes manual focus... no matter what the model. I, personally, would stick to a Canon with AF for what I do. Why you'd bring Nikon into this thread is a mystery. Maybe you should read the thread again? It's about a Canon legacy lens.
 
Jan 24, 2021
2
2
When Canon stopped repairing them, companies dumped all their spare parts and I picked up a PAIR of NOS focus motors. AFAIK, these motors can be used in the 200mm f/1.8, the original 300mm f/2.8 and 600mmf/4 and the 1200mm f/5.6.
Wow, what would it take for you to part with one?
 
<-- start Taboola -->