Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L

<p>I generally prefer longer lenses as opposed to 85mm and 50mm for portraits, but never used this 200mm L lens by Canon. Has anyone used it for portrait work, and/or compared it against the 135mm f/2 L? I'm considering purchasing it, but wanted others' opinions.</p>

Both are really great lenses. The 135mm works better for me compared to the longer 200mm. For close-ups the 200 is fine, if you are doing full length get the 135.

<p>Brian,</p>

 

<p>Once you start talking about L telephoto primes, the only difference worth worrying about is the

focal length and whether or not it’s suitable for the subject at hand. Well, that and how many

body parts you have to auction off to buy one, of course…</p>

 

<p>You can decide for yourself pretty easily which works better. If you have a 70-200, simply tape

the lens at 135 and shoot a portrait session, then re-tape the lens at 200 and shoot another portrait

session. If you don’t have a 70-200, then either rent one or rent both a 135 and a 200.</p>

 

<p>The 200 is starting to get a bit long for portraiture, but there are certainly those who prefer

it.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p><div></div>

<p>I would have thought 200mm was a bit too long for portraits but we each have our own style. I own the 200mm f2.8 and I utterly love it, especially for street candids. It is razor sharp wide open. It's also cheaper than the 135mm but I believe the 135mm is supposed to be an awesome lens too.</p><div></div>

<p>I loved using the 200/2.8 L with film, and probably still would<br /> if I had full-frame digital camera. But with a crop sensor camera<br /> it no longer has the same appeal (to me) for portraits. Too tight.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Its great for long distance portraits</p>

<p><a title="IMG_ by Copsey, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2464577825_0b81f0ba78.jpg" alt="IMG_" width="333" height="500" /></a></p>

<p>I have used other 200mm's for 'long' street shooting, to capture unawares poses, etc.<br>

Funny, maybe it's that I'm just not shooting that way much anymore, but I really prefer the 100mm macro and 135L for shooting people. It has never occured to me to put the 200L on for shooting people. I may have to try that... but the 135L sort of gets your attention, being <strong>so</strong> nice.</p><div></div>

<p>I've used the 200mm 2.8 for portraits and love the slightly compressed look and the way it isolates your subject. Its a nice focal length for taking natural unposed portraits. </p>

<p>I have not used the 200 but my 135 F2 is THE sharpest lens I have. I have the lots of them too, to include; 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 2.8 Macro, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400 L</p>

<p>I use my 200 2.8 for street portraiture. It can actually be too sharp for people with less than perfect skin.</p>

<p>OR you could get the 135L and a 1.4x extender (Canon's works on the 135), and have some flexibility and maybe soften up the image just enough when using 135+1.4x. If you're looking for razer out of the camera though maybe forget this idea.</p>

<p>I don't like "adding" compensations to a lens via the camera. Usually only use lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't like "adding" compensations to a lens via the camera. Usually only use lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Something is lost in translation here. Care to clarify?</p>

<p>I think he means using the tele-extender... Brian, with the 1.4 extender there is no significant degradation of the image. It mates up as a part of the lens, the only major downside I know is that it's 'white' and looks like you're putting your toe in the water of the 'white lens' brigade.</p>

<p>The 200 2.8L has been one of my fav and oft used optics since 1995: sharp as a tack wide open, virtually flare free, petite and stealthy black. I've used it extensively as a street and beach lens but lately I'm leaning more towards land and city scapes. It's extremely flattering as a portrait lens--has a slimming effect on women--but you need to stand so far away it's a pain: too much shouting of directions and fill flash really has to struggle (unless you use remote flash or have an assistant with reflector. I see fashion photogs in Waikiki using the 300 2.8L IS USM so 200 really isn't that long if you're really serious about the slimming effect.</p>

<p><strong>Canon EOS 50D, EF 200 2.8 USM, Bogan tripod</strong><br>

<img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/downtown_images/Jul_4_2009_0963.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="940" /></p>

<p>Maybe you could borrow or rent it.</p>

<p>My guess is that if you like long portrait lenses you'll love it.<br>

You'll need some distance or you'll get headshots.</p>

<p>I absolutely love long portrait lenses and very tight headshots but they're not everybodies cup of tea. Some shooters insist that you need to show a lot of the environment or props. They need 50mm on FF.</p>

<p>Anyway, just try it and see if you like it. Technically the lens is capable of shooting very fine pictures.</p>