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

Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
navastronia said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#42
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
#43
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
#44
dolina said:
Leisure travel to eat Nasi goreng, sight seeing and a bit of shopping.
Click to expand...

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: 1 user
Upvote 0
#46
dolina said:
I think it's just a 3+ hour trip for us though :)
Click to expand...

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: 1 user
Upvote 0
#47
SteveC said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
#50
goldenhusky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nikon - and its cheaper.
 
Upvote 0
#51
Fischer said:
Nikon - and its cheaper.
Click to expand...
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”.
 
Upvote 0
#52
CanonFanBoy said:
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”.
Click to expand...
This place doesn't look as near as fun... https://nikonrumors.com
 
Upvote 0
#56
tjphoto said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
#57
goldenhusky said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Minimum Focus Distance is 2.5m or 8.2 feet
 
Upvote 0
#58
Tom Raymond said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Upvote 0
#59
Fischer said:
Think you need to re-read the thread again... ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Canon Researching a 300mm f/2.0L and 200mm f/1.8L
Replies
39
Views
2K
roby17269
roby17269
Richard CR
Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM Review
Replies
11
Views
3K
Exploreshootshare
Exploreshootshare
Canon Rumors
Sigma to announce a 200mm f/1.8 Sports Lens?
Replies
24
Views
4K
Del Paso
D
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again
Replies
137
Views
17K
SnowMiku
S
Canon Rumors
Stock Notice: Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z at B&H Photo
Replies
1
Views
2K
freejay
F
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu