200mm f2.8i and 200mm f2.8ii

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by donna1459, Oct 8, 2014.

  1. Is there a difference between these two lenses? The first one had a built in hood, but has been discontinued. Are the specs the same? Any info that I can be referred to would be helpful. Thank You!
  2. According to the Canon Museum, they're the same design save for the hood.
  3. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I did some research several years ago concerning my various options for a Canon 200mm lens – I found this set of articles useful enough to keep. They might assist you. I have set the page at the two EF 200/2.8 lenses, but there is much more to the whole article:
    FWIW: As a result I bought the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 USM, but I have used the EF 200 F/2.8 L MkII and it is very very nice, and it is also black not white, which is useful for me sometimes: so I ended up buying the 135/2L a couple of years later.
  4. William W.'s site shows that the MTF curves for the two differ, with in some cases the older version being superior. The Mark I is based on the 80-200 f/2.8 zoom with the zoom mechanism taken out, according to http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/dc_Canon_200_mm_f2.8/a_Canon_200_mm_f2.8L.html
  5. Does anyone know if a tripod collar can be purchased for the original? Thank you all for the information. It is helpful.
  6. I think you could get either one and be happy. I had ver 2, but would have got a ver 1 if I could have found one, a built in hood is nicer.
  7. Actually, I have a tripod collar for the Canon 200 f/2.8L (original). Just sold the lens but kept the tripod collar as it also fits the original 300 f/4L lens which I have also sold. Guess I don't need it anymore so if you are interested, make me an offer.
  8. I read WW's link, and saw a lens I am now lusting after... the EF 200/1.8 L ...Of course they haven't made them for a decade or so, so perhaps not a good business investment (for the $4k they go for now) but I looked at what that lens is capable of, and... *drool* ;)
  9. I have no idea what a tripod collar runs...will do a bit of research!
  10. Marcus, I'd suggest getting the 200mm f/2.0 IS if you're going to drop that kind of money on it. It's only 1/3 stop slower, and it's a bit sharper, a pound lighter, focuses 2 feet closer, and the IS is excellent. Plus it can be fixed if it breaks.
  11. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    They are pretty nice photos from the 200/1.8, I agree.
    I think that a few lenses reach a "collectable" status and the money paid to acquire a collectable lens doesn't reflect any equity/logic compared the cost of a more pratical and sometimes a better alternative.

    My view is that the EF200/1.8L is one of those collectable lenses (I have never seen one person), but I've had the opportunity to hold and use the EF 50 F/1.0L, which I think is also a collectable - and which is over the US$4k price line too.
  12. I have the original EF 200 2.8L USM, bought new in 1994. Tripod Mount Ring A (black) is the original recommended mount, but the white version and updated Tripod Mount Ring A II work as well. If you own the ring for an EF 300 4 L USM, EF 80-200 2.8L, EF70-200 4L USM, EF400 5.6L USM or EF70-200 4L IS USM you already have a ring that fits. Canon doesn't list these older lenses as compatible with Tripod Mount Ring A variants since they're long out of production.
  13. I may be mistaken, but I recall the built-in hood on the Mk I being considerably shorter than the detachable hood of the Mk II which leads me to wonder if it is less helpful and/or if the larger one contributes to more vignetting.
    Not a significant sample size, but FWIW the only Mk I I've used was noticeably less sharp than the single Mk II I previously owned, and had considerably more dust inside from its longer service life.
  14. Older lenses sometimes become soft due to elements drifting out of alignment. Happened to my old EF 70-200 4L. Canon realigned it and it became tack sharp again.

Share This Page