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

<p>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!</p>

<p>According to the Canon Museum, they're the same design save for the hood.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF200mmf28LUSM/index.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF200mmf28LUSM/index.htm</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>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</p>

 

<p>Does anyone know if a tripod collar can be purchased for the original? Thank you all for the information. It is helpful.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I read WW's link, and saw a lens I am now lusting after... the EF 200/<strong>1.8</strong> 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* ;)</p>

<p>I have no idea what a tripod collar runs...will do a bit of research!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>They are pretty nice photos from the 200/1.8, I agree.<br>

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.<br>

<br /> 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.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>