 |
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras |
Unlike consumer zooms, it also takes well to a 1.4X teleconverter, giving the equivalent of 280mm at f/4. The USM autofocus system is quick, silent, and sure in almost any lighting, and because it's essentially a longer version of Canon's legendary 135/2, this 200/2.8 is plenty sharp all the way from f/2.8. Finally, because it's small and black, the security at sporting venues is far more likely to let you take it inside.
It's not all roses though. 200mm on a 1.6X crop body is a 320mm equivalent. That's a lot of lens to handhold without stabilization. Pure sharpness doesn't stand for much when the whole frame is blurred by handshake. Despite the fast f/2.8 aperture, it takes a lot of light to keep the shutter speeds up, and this lens isn't all that forgiving below 1/400; good technique and proper bracing are essential. My copy suffers further from chromatic aberration (color fringing around highlights) and loss of contrast in sunlight to a greater extent than any other lens that I own. Shooting into the sun, or with the sun just outside the frame, is not a forte. I'd dock a star for this if Amazon would let me.
If you want versatility, there are also better choices than the 200/2.8. Framing options are limited, and you'll rarely find the composition afforded by 200mm exactly matches what you intended. While the 70-200/2.8 series are no stronger optically than this lens, they'll get the shot every time purely by the ability to track an object at 70mm, and rapidly zoom to 200mm to take the picture. The addition of IS (image stabilization) alone doubles the number of keepers on the 70-200/2.8 IS. If your livelihood depends on your results, that's worth the price of admission.
But if you're not molting fifties, and you just want a sharp and fast telephoto that'll manage better shutter speeds, sharpness, background blur, and contrast (in most circumstances) than a consumer zoom, this 200/2.8L is a great choice.
I tried it with an extension tube this morning and it was even more spectacular. The minimum focusing distance was much shorter with no degradation of image quality.
You won't go wrong if you choose this lens.
It is fairly heavy but no need for a tripod.
I was researching the differences between the 70-200 f/4L and the 70-200 2.8L and how soon I could afford one or the other and somehow I ran across this 200mm prime. Noone ever seems to talk about it and I hadn't seen it around the sites I was reviewing (probably because the 200mm 1.8L gets all the attention), but I found it one day and immediately bought it. It's a reasonable compromise between the two lenses mentioned so I decided not to wait any longer for more L glass. It performs as you should expect from L series lenses, I have no complaints about it and am well satisfied with it. I do find myself missing a zoom range and so there are still decisions to make about a future upgrade path. I've stopped using my non-L zooms altogether now as I get a very low percentage of sharp, rich, realistic looking shots compared to the L glass or my 50mm 2.5 compact macro lens.
With this lens I have a combination possiblity that I've never heard discussed... I could keep this lens and get a 70-200mm f/4 IS to pair with it. This would mean that I would have one lens with IS for hand held stability, the other for sports action in low light. The weight of both lens is about the same as the 2.8L zoom, but when handholding for long periods either lens would be light by itself. I could leave one lens home when backpacking if I wanted to or be no worse off (weight-wise) bringing both than if I brought the 2.8L zoom. Size-wise the 2 lens pack better in my kit than the one large lens would. As luck would have it, they both can use the less expensive 200mm prime's tripod ring (though neither lens comes with one - Booooo!!! Hissssss!!!).
When it comes to long tele shots with an extender I still am starting with a wide enough aperature with the 2.8 prime that the 2x is usable with Autofocus. Also, I'm starting with a prime lens so the final photo would be theoretically sharper than the 70-200 2.8L zoom. The 70-200mm f/4 IS zoom however, scores as high or higher as primes in it's range (according to Photozone) unlike most zooms, better than the f/4 non-IS or either of the 2.8 zooms according to their objective testing.
What I would give up in this combination is the ability to do it all in one lens so that means I may occasionally miss a shot when swapping lenses. Also, I give up the wide aperature if I decide I want 2.8 in the rest of the zoom range and didn't want to bump up the ISO dramatically in the f/4L IS zoom. On the other hand, if a lens has to go in for service there is redundancy in the system and I still have something to use (or share with a friend on the trip who splits the weight).
Because the resale value on L glass is pretty good, if I prefer a different upgrade path I can start over without much financial loss. Oh... and I can buy both the 70-200 f/4L IS and this lens at about the same price as the 70-200 2.8L IS lens alone, but pay the price in stages as I go rather than waiting a while to get the single lens.
Before I make that upgrade decision though, I think I'm going to rent some of the possible choices to figure out if I'd be happy with this upgrade path. It has some pros for me, considering most of the time I'd be backpacking with it for quite a few miles and at least I have an option to leave some weight behind if I would want. I really like the 200mm 2.8L as it is, and as you can see it has interesting possibilites for it's place in your kit. I wonder too, if anyone else has gone this route and what you think of it... I haven't bought that next lens yet and would be interested in hearing about others who may have already considered this.
Serously, this is one darned fine piece of glass, you just simply cannot go wrong with a Canon "L" lense, just can't
Jack Priest, Sailor Home from the Sea