Canon EF 200mm F1.8 L Comments?

[andreas_holmstr_m]

I'm thinking of buying one, if however I find a used one in decent

condition...

 

Comments on it's performance vs price etc...

 

In what price range do these monsters move? (Used)

[the_macman]

That beauty is discontinued. I can't describe the performance. I saw shots

made with it and I'm speechless... what impresses me the most is the spec

sheet. 200mm at f/1.8 is basically unheard of. It's on my wish list for 2004 and

quite franky, I'd gladly pay the new price for a one in good condition.

[andreas_holmstr_m]

Possible to use with extenders?

[chip]

Hi Andresas,

 

The EF 200 1.8L is IMO the sharpest lens Canon has made for the EF mount. I've used the EF 200 1.8L on my EOS 1N and EOS 1N/RS bodies and the chromes I captured with this lens were unbelieveably sharp and extra snappy! This is a very fast focusing lens with the same preset AF point as the other Canon f/2.8L superteles. It's a very versatile lens, used with either the EF 1.4X or EF 2X you have a 280mm (outstanding image quality), or 400mm (still excellent image quality), lens that is while large can deliver fantastic image quality and lens speed.

 

The only problem is that for most sports film shooters it can be a little short unless you are shooting near the sidelines or shooting tennis or gymnastics. It makes a good runway lens for fashion and portraits too.

 

I've seen them regularly at the Buena Park camera shows and on eBay. The going rate for a complete (case, caps and lens shade), near mint EF 200 1.8L seems to be centered about $2,200, about the same price as an EF 300 2.8L in the same condition.

 

HTH

[John Crowe]

You really do have to have a specific use for this admittedly incredible lens, or very deep pockets. If you are doing a lot of indoor sporting events or theatre/fashion events then it could be ideal but then you have to also consider the 135mm f2 L at 1/3 the price. You are already asking about teleconverters and that is where the justification for this lens can run into trouble. The 300mm f2.8 L will likely be sharper than the 200mm f1.8 with 1.4x extender, and the 200mm combo will only be 1/2 stop faster. For the same amount of money the 300mm is generally a more useful length for sports. If someone already has a supertelephoto 400/f2.8, 500/f4, or 600/f4 and is looking for a smaller faster handheld telephoto then the 200/1.8 could fit the bill, but so also could the 200mm f2.8 L. Good luck!

[r._j.]

All the praise raises the question, why did they discontinue this lens? Maybe there's a new IS version in the pipeline?

[scott_ferris]

Hi Andreas,

 

I didn't bother getting one (but have used several). Why? It's a

dinosaur. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is effectively faster and gives VERY

little away in sharpness, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is lighter, faster to

focus, has a better magnification ratio, focuses closer and is

much more flexible and the big one for me, has the same DOF

at its closest focusing distance. The 300 f2.8 IS is lighter

focuses faster gives NOTHING away in sharpness is more

flexible and effectively faster. Buy the way f1.8 at ten feet is very

difficult to work with in any kind of action scene, the indoor sport

and runway guys use them from further away for the light

gathering power but as most of them are very firmly in the digital

markets they just turn up the ISO nowadays and use 70-200 f2.8

IS's instead.

 

As stated they go regularly for a touch over $2000 on ebay but

that makes it more expensive than the 70-200 f2.8 IS warranted

and new. I have the money to buy one but choose not to as I own

both the other lenses mentioned.

 

Don't think I'm being negative but IMO time has well and truely

overtaken this particular lens, there are very very few instances

where it is the only lens that could get the job done, that was not

the case when it was brought out. Obviously performance vs

price is a no brainer for me, yes it gives amazingly sharp slides

but is severly limited in use.

 

Take care, Scott.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>All the praise raises the question, why did they discontinue this lens?</cite>

 

<p>I don't have access to their sales figures but I suspect they sold far fewer of these than of the longer superteles. 200 is too short for a lot of (but certainly not all) sports and way too short for most wildlife work. Portraiture is typically quite well done by f/2.8 lenses; the extra stop and a bit really isn't necessary and certainly doesn't justify a huge price premium. So there aren't really a lot of uses for this lens that couldn't be done at least as well, if not better, and quite possibly cheaper by other lenses.</p>

 

<cite>Maybe there's a new IS version in the pipeline?</cite>

 

<p>This lens has a number of siblings - the old non-IS 300-600 superteles. All of those were replaced with IS versions at the same time a few years ago. The 200 was not.</p>

 

<p>And Canon has never discontinued one lens, then waited a while before releasing an IS version. Either the IS version comes out at the same time the non-IS lens is discontinued (e.g. the IS superteles), or the non-IS version continues to be a current product, at least for a little while and sometimes for many years, alongside the IS version (e.g. 75-300, 300/4, 70-200).</p>

 

<p>I doubt there is a 200/1.8L IS USM coming. If there is another 200/1.8 in the works, I'd imagine it would be a DO lens, but I'm not sure even that makes much sense.</p>

[bmeister]

<P>The 200/f1.8 is the best lens in the bag for me. It is excellent with the 1.4x-II and very good with the 2x-II (stopped down 1 stop with the 2x it's great). As far as one poster saying the 70-200/f2.8IS is effectively faster...LOL...maybe for static subjects but when you need the fastetst SHUTTER SPEED, nothing in the big telephoto world beats the 200/f1.8 for light gathering. The 200/f1.8 is much sharper than ANY zoom on the 1Ds and 10D. That light gathering ability translates to more accurate and faster AF too, especially when the subject is moving around. Examples:</P>

<BR>

<A href="http://www.pbase.com/image/21694768">200/f1.8+1.4x-II</A><BR>

<BR>

<A href="http://www.pbase.com/image/22508340">200/f1.8+2x-II</A>

[scott_ferris]

Hi all,

 

long layoff but I think BW's pics show exactly why there is no real market for the 200 f 1.8,

other than keen amatuers or very specialised applications.

 

The first pic, with a 1.4 TC you have a 280mm f2.5, you have lost a small amount of your

sharpness due to TC and you have lost your light gathering advantage, and your f stop

advantage, well all except 1/3rd of a stop. The pic could have been taken better with a

300 f 2.8 IS, yes it is 1/3rd of a stop slower but the focus is faster it is every bit as sharp (

at the very least as sharp as a 200 + 1.4TC) and it has IS. Your not even useing the

minimun f stop

so there is no picture advantage.

 

The second pic, you are effectively useing a 400mm f 3.5. Obviously a 400 f2.8 IS could

have done the job better and faster. If your argument is against carrying several big lenses

and the

flexibility you have then again the 300 f2.8 IS with 1.4 TC would give you a 420mm f 4,

again 1/3rd of a stop differance but faster focus (don't forget the 300 f2.8 IS is advertised

as the fastest focusing lens in the EF lineup) and sharper, a 300 +1.4 TC is sharper than a

200 + 2 TC.

 

So the only place the 200 f 1.8 is the best lens for the job is at 200 and f 1.8- f3.5 ish as

this is where the 200 f2.8 starts to get as sharp as the f1.8, pretty specialised to me. The

200 f1.8 is a first class low light short telephoto, that is all. It seems interior sports,

runway shows and astronomy cover the vast majority of uses for this superb but outdated

lens.

 

Take care, Scott.

[John Crowe]

Well it is now almost 4 years later and I now have a Nikon 200mm f2 manual focus lens that I use on my 10D. I bought it two years ago for about $600 USD. I use it for indoor swimming events and some gymnasium sports. On the 10D it is similar to using a 320mm f2 lens, so pretty useful. I also have a Nikon 400/2.8 so I don't use the 200 with converters. As I mentioned above, 4 years ago, lenses like this are highly specialized but for the price I paid it has been well worth it. The 200/2 is incredibly sharp wide open and gets even better to f4. I came upon this thread since I am considering replacing the Nikon 200/2 with the autofocusing Canon 200/1.8 L.

 

 

Just for reference Canon is now coming out with a 200/2 lens with IS!

[gerald_liu1]

<p>Althought today is July 2, 2010, I would like to thank the comments and analysis provided by Mr. Scott Ferris in 2004 on the Subject (Canon EF 200mm f1.8L Comments). I have both a Canon EF 300mm f2.8, and a Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS, and I am just about to consider buying a Canon EF 200mm f1.8L (a used but discontinued lens). Scott Ferris presented a valuable comments and analysis on the applications of the Canon EF 200mm f1.8L lens. I agreed with him. Thanks to Scott Ferris.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Thank you Gerald,</p>

<p>As an aside, these lenses are now not supported by Canon, they don't stock the parts for them. The real kicker, if the focus motor goes you can't even manual focus them! They have the earliest fly-by-wire focus system that means the focus elements are not connected to the focus ring physically, only by electronics. Indeed this is the case with all the white non IS fast telephoto lenses Canon made.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[gerald_liu1]

<p>Hi Scott,<br>

Thank you very much for your explanations.<br>

I believe 'Fly-by-wire focus system' is a kind of electronic proximity system in which the focus elements are opto-coupled by light sensors and receivers to the focus ring, so that the friction between the focus elements and the focus ring is zero, thereby producing a fast response in focusing the image. The focus system is the brain; the focus motor is the muscle. If either one goes, the whole system malfunctions. I could be wrong. (They could also be magnetically coupled. However, opto-coupling was a new technology back in 1970's).<br>

I have decided not to pursue Canon EF 200mm f1.8L lens anymore. Thanks to Photo.net, and with special thanks to you, Scott. You have helped me saved US$3500 today. Cheers,<br>

Gerald</p>