Talk Me Out Or Into It Please - 200mm F2L

[JohnDizzo15]

Been mulling over it for several years now and have always talked myself off the ledge. Key facts:

- Serious hobbyist/don't like shooting for money
- love 200mm FL
- primary subjects are my two children (2 and 8)
- already had the 135/loved but sold
- had the 100 but didn't use it enough/sold
- currently still have the 85II, 70-200II and Fuji rig with 85/1.2 equiv.
- All three mentioned above get regular usage

Will I honestly notice the magic over the things I already have? lol

I'm sure I'm not the first person to post or ask about this thing. But I'm on the ledge again (and probably the closest I've been) to pulling the trigger....and soon.

 

[Light Sculptor]

I own it. It is one of the best lenses that I have ever used, and I adore it. I have used the 1.8 too, and although the bokeh is even better on it, there is the worry of repair should it break, and the lack of IS, which can be an issue in low light (depending on how you shoot). If you have the money and you are the kind of person who shoots wide open in low light, then it is great.

One thing I would say is that at f2 DOF is very low, and in very low light if your camera body is not up to it, you might be manually focussing. I shoot in the extremes of light, and so this might not be an issue for you.

 

[Light Sculptor]

I think some lenses have a magic to them, or more literally, special qualities that result in consistently top images. Something extra than just being a very good lens. It doesn't mean that you will get great images all of the time, or that they are the lens for every occasion, but with the right subject, and lighting they will bring some thing extra to the table. The 85mm 1.2 is one such lens. The 200mm f2.0 is another. The 70-200 2.8 is not. The 70-200 is a great, and very practical lens, especially for event shooting, but in my opinion it doesn't have that little extra magic, that the 2.0 does. For some occasions I will not consider the 2.0 and will take the 70-200 2.8, it is simply the better choice for what I am doing.

 

[eli72]

I love the 200 f2, and it does have a magical quality to it. However, I find it difficult to shoot my 6-year old grandson with it because he's always moving closer and farther away, so the 70-200 becomes a much more effective lens since I can zoom to keep him in the frame without cutting off parts of his body. If I can find him when he's playing in a particular spot and not running around, the 200 becomes my favorite.

 

[Dylan777]

Excellent when you pair up with 24-70 on another body - close up shots are SUPER, prodcues very thin DOF. Otherwise, stay with 85L II and your current setup.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

After seeing what Lensrentals did with the 200mm testing and comparison recently, it set me up for another internal struggle. lol

My main concern is whether or not I'll struggle with being fixed at 200 and how that will affect my frequency of usage/utility. I'm largely going to be shooting in the same scenarios as you, Dylan.

 

[Besisika]

If I was rich I would have bought it. The best lens I have ever used.
For full body, vertical portrait shot, nothing can replace it.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I've been thinking about it too, but for a different use (stopping action in poorly lit venues).

It seems to be a very specialized lens - can't really think of any other major uses. I guess those that do a lot of long-range portraits might find it useful too.

 

[danski0224]

I hear that it is almost as good as the 200 f/1.8... so step back from the ledge a bit.

 

[mackguyver]

I've been thinking about it too, but for a different use (stopping action in poorly lit venues).

It seems to be a very specialized lens - can't really think of any other major uses. I guess those that do a lot of long-range portraits might find it useful too.

I think indoor sports and head shots / distant portraits (esp. for fashion) are the two primary reasons to buy one. I'm not saying there aren't other uses, but anyone who does a lot of work in one or both of those areas will likely find this lens to be a good investment.

 

[Pookie]

I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.

Take a look at Dylan's photo, cute kids but do you need a 200 f/2 to capture that image. Nope. That money would be better used in a college savings account for those children. Or perhaps even basic photography classes so that you know how to compose an image properly... and then make money with client work.

If you're interested in bragging right on CR forums then by all means, get one and pet it while you call it precious. Mention it when anyone starts a thread on 200 FL. I love the forum comments, "yea, the 70-200 is great but the 200 f/2 is the way to go!!!".

If you're making loads of money with client work, then yes it's a great lens and might add something to your assets. Might, again I say, the 85L and 135L are just as kick ass and for a fraction of the cost will do practically the same thing. Even the 70-200 can produce a good thin DOF if you know how to use it.

If you're Jonesing for the 200mm f/2 just because it's the "200mm f/2"... save your cash and look elsewhere.

 

[Dylan777]

I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.

Take a look at Dylan's photo, cute kids but do you need a 200 f/2 to capture that image. Nope. That money would be better used in a college savings account for those children. Or perhaps even basic photography classes so that you know how to compose an image properly... and then make money with client work.

If you're interested in bragging right on CR forums then by all means, get one and pet it while you call it precious. Mention it when anyone starts a thread on 200 FL. I love the forum comments, "yea, the 70-200 is great but the 200 f/2 is the way to go!!!".

If you're making loads of money with client work, then yes it's a great lens and might add something to your assets. Might, again I say, the 85L and 135L are just as kick ass and for a fraction of the cost will do practically the same thing. Even the 70-200 can produce a good thin DOF if you know how to use it.

If you're Jonesing for the 200mm f/2 just because it's the "200mm f/2"... save your cash and look elsewhere.

Pookie,
You have any kids? or maybe done any kid photograhy sessions? Your lighting works with models are wonderful. I would love to see some your light works with active kids - hopefully be able to pickup few tricks from it.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I am a owner of a portrait studio. I own it and love it. Paid for by client work. BUT, there are other lenses that do the same. It's big and bulky... although it get's lots of oooh's and aww's in reality, I'd rather use the 85 II or the 135L.

Take a look at Dylan's photo, cute kids but do you need a 200 f/2 to capture that image. Nope. That money would be better used in a college savings account for those children. Or perhaps even basic photography classes so that you know how to compose an image properly... and then make money with client work.

If you're interested in bragging right on CR forums then by all means, get one and pet it while you call it precious. Mention it when anyone starts a thread on 200 FL. I love the forum comments, "yea, the 70-200 is great but the 200 f/2 is the way to go!!!".

If you're making loads of money with client work, then yes it's a great lens and might add something to your assets. Might, again I say, the 85L and 135L are just as kick ass and for a fraction of the cost will do practically the same thing. Even the 70-200 can produce a good thin DOF if you know how to use it.

If you're Jonesing for the 200mm f/2 just because it's the "200mm f/2"... save your cash and look elsewhere.

All things I agree with you on. Definitely not trying to own it to brag about it on CR as I have plenty of other lenses that would allow me to oogle with others about. Petting it though on the other hand is something I think I would like to partake in.

My curiousity and hope primarily lies in the fact that I do do a lot of distant environmental portrait/action type stuff of my kids and thought I might get that extra umph and sharpness wide open that you don't get with the 85. While I get plenty of separation with the 85 and am very happy with it, I fantasize about the extra resolution, sharpness, focus speed, accuracy, and IS of the 200.

Based on what you're saying though, if I'm not getting much more than the 85 has to offer as far as "look" goes, then I will happily save my gouda for something else.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Some recent examples of what I very commonly shoot. These were with the Fuji 56/1.2.

I am very pleased with both the Canon results with the 85II and the Fuji. Which is precisely what causes me to be ever so curious about the 200 since it should theoretically be even more pleasing, right? lol

 

[danski0224]

Based on what you're saying though, if I'm not getting much more than the 85 has to offer as far as "look" goes, then I will happily save my gouda for something else.

Why not rent one (200) and try it, or if you are a CPS member, try one on loan.

That would be the easiest way to see if the 200 gives you what you are looking for over the 85.

I suppose that you already know that the 200 is razor sharp wide open and the 85 is not (not that that is a bad thing- just different).

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I suppose that you already know that the 200 is razor sharp wide open and the 85 is not (not that that is a bad thing- just different).
Why not rent one (200) and try it, or if you are a CPS member, try one on loan.
That would be the easiest way to see if the 200 gives you what you are looking for over the 85.

Thought about rental but I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to things like that. So a few hundred bucks was out of the question as I would have rather just chipped it into the fund to buy it. lol.

Cancelled CPS a while back as it wasn't necessary for my user level and I wasn't getting any return on the price of admission.

And you are correct. That is the main allure of the 200 for me is that utter sharpness and resolution when shot wide open when compared with the 85. I know I can always play with distances to get similar overall looks. But the sharpness and resolution are what they are respectively. The perspective of the 200 is also something I love (or compression as some refer to it as).

I am also aware that some people think you might as well go with the 300 for sheer resolution and subject/background isolation. I personally like the 200 FL since it is still usable for more things as I'm not always at a great distance from my subjects.

 

[danski0224]

Thought about rental but I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to things like that. So a few hundred bucks was out of the question as I would have rather just chipped it into the fund to buy it. lol.

Cancelled CPS a while back as it wasn't necessary for my user level and I wasn't getting any return on the price of admission.

Well, renting one is more expensive than getting one on loan (free) with the $100 CPS membership... that seems worthwhile.

Paying to rent one is significantly less expensive than buying one to try it.

There is a fine line between being a cheap bastard and foolish... ;D

 

[Dantana]

After seeing what Lensrentals did with the 200mm testing and comparison recently, it set me up for another internal struggle. lol

My main concern is whether or not I'll struggle with being fixed at 200 and how that will affect my frequency of usage/utility. I'm largely going to be shooting in the same scenarios as you, Dylan.

Maybe you could put a piece of gaffers tape on your 70-200 for a day and see how using just that FL affects your shooting. I know it won't show you what the images would look like out of the 2.0, but it would give you a feel for shooting at only 200.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

After seeing what Lensrentals did with the 200mm testing and comparison recently, it set me up for another internal struggle. lol

My main concern is whether or not I'll struggle with being fixed at 200 and how that will affect my frequency of usage/utility. I'm largely going to be shooting in the same scenarios as you, Dylan.

Maybe you could put a piece of gaffers tape on your 70-200 for a day and see how using just that FL affects your shooting. I know it won't show you what the images would look like out of the 2.0, but it would give you a feel for shooting at only 200.

A splendid idea indeed. Might just do that this evening.

 

[Perio]

Been mulling over it for several years now and have always talked myself off the ledge. Key facts:

- Serious hobbyist/don't like shooting for money
- love 200mm FL
- primary subjects are my two children (2 and 8)
- already had the 135/loved but sold
- had the 100 but didn't use it enough/sold
- currently still have the 85II, 70-200II and Fuji rig with 85/1.2 equiv.
- All three mentioned above get regular usage

Will I honestly notice the magic over the things I already have? lol

I'm sure I'm not the first person to post or ask about this thing. But I'm on the ledge again (and probably the closest I've been) to pulling the trigger....and soon.

I have 85 1.2, 70-200 2.8ii, 100L and 200L. Honestly, even though 200L is an amazing lens, I'd save $5-6k and skip 200L. 70-200 ii is an amazing lens and is very versatile. 85 1.2 is a unique lens as well. I also had 135L and it's an amazing lens too.