200 2.0

[bob jr.]

Hi,

 

i would like to get this lens, but I am not sure that it is a good fit for me.

In terms of telephoto, i can mate my 70-200 IS with my 2x extender for 140-400

at 5.6. The 200 with the 2x extender would be a 400 4.0.

 

In terms of a fast lens in low light, I currently have the 70-200 2.8, so it is

just one stop slower with the flexibility of the zoom.

 

Can i please have some suggestions and dialogue about this lens? I am sure that

I am missing something, because the cost of this lens and all of the talk

around it tells me that it is a real gem.

 

I shoot all kinds of subjects in all kinds of light. i am at

bbothecvcamrraman.com

 

What are some uses that you all see for this lens, and do you think it would be

useful for me?

 

- bob

[dogbert]

use for this lens? Well indoor sports and yuppie Japanese wedding portraits.

 

But if you have to ask about this lens you probably don't need it. On the other hand if you have money to burn them why bother asking in the first place?

[bob jr.]

What the he** kind of answer is that? Useless. Are you bitter?

 

I just want someone to answer the question that has something useful to contribute.

[ralph_jensen]

"Firefox can't find the server at www.bbothecvcamrraman.com."

 

Without knowing what kind of photos you take, I'll offer this:

 

The 200/2.0 lens (like its predecessor, the 200/1.8 non-IS, discontinued in 2004) has a fairly specialized niche, and while Geoff's answer came across as rude it was partially accurate. (I suspect that to Geoff's ear the post sounded like "I have a 30D but everyone's talking about the $8,000 1DsIII; do you think that expensive camera would be useful for me?" Usually those who need it, know it.)

 

The 200/2.0 is most useful for (1) photographers who shoot moving subjects in really low light at a distance (indoor sports and theater/performance photography) and/or (2) photographers who want the ultimate in isolating a subject from its background (I've heard that wedding photographers in Asia like the 200/1.8 for portraits, but I have no way of confirming this).

 

Many times the two needs (low-light and subject isolation) are simultaneous: it's nice to be able to isolate one figure on stage from the actors behind him, for example, or to isolate a gymnast in a small arena from the spectators behind her.

 

Users of the Canon's 200/1.8 and Nikon's 200/2 (which costs $2000 less than Canon's new offering and is probably just as good optically) also rave about the bokeh of these lenses (the quality of the rendering of out-of-focus areas) and their sharpness: "Sharpest lens I've ever used" is probably said more about these two lenses than any other.

 

Is the 200/2.0 worth it for your needs? Could be, depending on how deep your pockets are (the "dentists' hobby lens" syndrome that Geoff alluded to) and/or whether you can justify the expense based on how many saleable photos it might bring to you (for example, if you shoot and sell a lot of gymnastics photos). In other words, many of those acquiring the 200/2 are either wealthy hobbyists who can afford it or professionals whose employer (Sports Illustrated, for example) require and may even pay for the best.

 

Keep in mind that such lenses are extremely heavy for their focal length (the earlier Canon and the Nikon both weigh twice what your 70-200/2.8 weighs) and while they aren't super long, they are pretty large in diameter, esp. with the hood. So low-light shooters who want to keep a low-profile might opt instead for the 135/2 or the 200/2.8, both miniscule compared to the 200/2. On the other hand, the "high-profile" of a big lens can be part of its appeal to some wealthy hobbyists!

 

It's also worth noting that for $500 less than the 200/2 you could get a Canon 500/4, for $700 less a Canon 400/4, and for $1100 less a Canon 300/2.8. True, none of those can shoot at 200mm; on the other hand, you already have that focal length covered with your 70-200/2.8, and at their respective focal lengths those three stellar lenses are all going to outperform the 200/2 with a teleconverter.

 

Re: viewing sample photos: In many cases it's hard to distinguish 200mm photos taken at f2.0 from those taken at f2.8, but if you do searches for samples from the Nikon 200/2.0 and the Canon 200/1.8 you can see examples of what such a lens is capable of. (I know that wlcastleman.com used to have numerous gymnastics photos taken with his 200/1.8 - which he also uses for astrophotography, I think - but his site's under construction and those may not be accessible right now.)

 

Hope this helps.

[ralph_jensen]

P.S. Here are a few gymnastics photos taken with the Canon 200/1.8 on a 1DIII:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/628213/0#5558521

 

Search fredmiranda.com for "200/1.8" and "200/2" to find similar threads with samples.

 

For example, this thread uses the 1DIII with 200/1.8 combo for the first two photos, and the Nikon D3 with the 70-200/2.8 zoom for the rest (you'll see that there's not a big difference between the f/2.0 lens and the f/2.8 lens, at least when viewed on the web):

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/631084/0#5587281

[yakim_peled1]

For this amount of money you'd better be 100% sure it's the right lens for you. I'd wait till it is in the stores, rent it and try it for a few days. Then you wouldn't need to ask if it's the right lens for you, you'll know.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[chrisjb]

I think geoff just came across a bit strong but means well, only you would know if the 200 zoom at 2.8 has let you down, but if buying to put ont a TC, wouldn`t you be better equiped with a 300 2.8 or fast 400mm in the 1st place. my guess this lens will be short lived and become a collectors item with no parts avail in a few short years :)

[chrisjb]

BTW, I don`t understand why with such a lens would anyone want to compromise its qualities at the price it sells at. It is speciallized I`d guess on par the 135 f2L only more so. Maybe the Nikon 200f2 with a D300 behinf even cheaper, I don`t see the potential benefits from this lens with anything under a 1 series body working with the DOF it has to work with. Just MO. The website comes up dud BTW

[yakim_peled1]

>> In terms of telephoto, i can mate my 70-200 IS with my 2x extender for 140-400 at 5.6. The 200 with the 2x extender would be a 400 4.0.

 

1. Did you actually tried it? I did and didn't like the results.

 

2. If your plan is to use it with 2X than either the 400/4 and 500/4 will be better option, cheaper and optically better.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[dmanthree]

Robert,

 

I didn't see Geoff's response as bitter or sarcstic. What I get from it was a comment: "if you don't know what a high-speed tele is useful for then you shouldn't buy it." It's a ton of money for a lens that is very new and untested. I'd wait. Yes, it will probably be excellent, but why risk that much money?

 

Yeah, I'd like one, too. :-)

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>at their respective focal lengths those three stellar lenses are all going to outperform the 200/2 with a teleconverter.</i></p><p>That's a very good point that shouldn't be overlooked.</p><p><i>if you don't know what a high-speed tele is useful for then you shouldn't buy it.</i></p><p>A fair enough point, but does that preclude discussing it? I know that the lens is not for me, primarily because it is out of my budget. Nevertheless, I'm still curious as to when it would be beneficial, and would be interested in such a discussion. I can see the place of such a curt response to someone that hasn't done the homework of searching existing possible answers for such a question, but just for asking the question? Come on! That's a bit much. My EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM has a pretty shallow DOF, as it is, at f/2.8. True, it would allow doubling the exposure, but if most of the subject will be out of focus anyway, because of DOF, what's the point? Anyway, I'm eager to read your thoughts.</p>

[jonny_mac]

Chris,

 

How is the 135 f/2 specialized any more than any other prime?

 

The 200/f2 is a whole different ballgame. It is super-expensive, compared to what many agree may be a pretty good value in the 135 f/2. It's all relative I suppose though....

[nhut-nguyen]

Hi Robert, According to your post I assume that you have $6000 set aside for the EF 200mm f/2.0L IS, but aren't sure if it's the right lens for you.

 

So I'd say you go ahead and place your order and when it arrives you get to play with it and figure out if it's right for you. I know you're a professional photographer (by reading your profile) so you'll have plenty of chances to try this lens out. If it isn't, you can always Ebay it, just consider the money your loose for reselling it as rental money.

 

You should place your order before the waiting list gets longer.

[John Crowe]

I have the Nikon 200/2 and a Nikon 400/2.8 to go with it. In a pinch I will use the 200/2 with a 1.4x, but if I am using the 200/2 generally I need the f2 not f2.8 that the converter makes it. I use it for indoor competitive swimming events but also end up using it alot for outdoor soccer for handheld shots rather than using the 400 on a monopod. Your zoom would also be fine for the soccer shots. I also use it for landscape photography, but that is generally because I do not have a smaller 200mm lens. At some point I am sure I will get a 80-200mm f2.8 zoom for the convenience, but I am not sure that I would use it that often knowing just how sharp the 200/2 is.

 

 

Sharpness is where the Canon 200/2 will likely excel just like the Nikon. It will be incredibly sharp, and we are talking leaps and bounds beyond the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8, not to mention your zoom! I have not done comparison lens tests for bokeh but I can simply say that the Nikon 200/2 performs nicely.

 

 

However if you want to round out your current lens system and avoid putting teleconverters on your zoom then I'd recommend the 300/2.8 over the 200/2. By the way they are about the same size.

[zml]

<i>It will be incredibly sharp, and we are talking leaps and bounds beyond the 300/2.8 </i><br><br>If you mean Nikon 300/2.8 - yes, Canon 200/2 should be much better than the Nikon - that's easy.

[chrisjb]

Jonny, it may be just my opinion, the longer the focal length and wider the aperture the shallower the DOF can become thus isolating objects a lil more, (correct me if you think I`m wrong)the 135f2L is probably the longest FL at this speed in canons range till now AFAIK (as the 200 1.8 out of production) the 135f2 has been noted for its nice OOF area performance, the FL can give much flattering looks with fashion and portrait work, but that is with FF. On a X1.6 body you have the appearance of a 210mm f2 but more DOF..Plus it is sensible affordable this new 200 will be out of most folks price range but nice to want.

[dogbert]

Peace brother. I am not bitter. It just seemed like a strange question (with a fairly obvious answer to me anyway) to ask what are the uses for this lens. Normally people dropping this kind of money on a lens know what they want and what the lens will do, ie in this case take telephoto pics in low light with less DoF and a stop faster shutter speed than is available with an f2.8 lens.

 

For pro sports shooters and premium wedding photographers whether they need this lens depends on whether their business case supports it. I can't judge that for you. If you are a well heeled hobbiest then it is really just a question of whther you want it more than Canon's asking price. If you are a poor amatuer and you still think you want it I would say you probably have your priorities wrong.

[alan_myers]

I have plenty uses for it, and want it...

 

But the 200/2 IS will just have to wait until Canon reenters our planetary system with their pricing.

 

There's absolutely no reason it should be 40-50% more than the comparable Nikkor, aside from screwing those who have money to burn and just gotta have the latest and greatest big chunk of glass before their neighboring photographer does.

 

Heck, I might buy a D300 *and* a 200/2 VR instead! That would be cheaper than the 200/2 IS alone.

 

70-200/2.8 IS with 2X? I tried it out and no longer use it either. 1.4X is fine, though. 2X works great on 300/2.8 and 500/4 though.

[John Crowe]

As for the Nikon vs Canon lenses, I have had Canon 300/2.8 and Canon 400/2.8 lenses and the advantage that the Canon's may have over the Nikon versions is simply not as staggering as the advantage of the Nikon 200/2 over ALL of them. I know for those who have not used a Nikon 200/2 or Zeiss 85/1.4 like I have, may find it difficult to appreciate just how sharp truly elite lenses are. These along with likely only a handful of others from a variety of manufacturers, including Canon, are simply far superior to typical high quality lenses like any of the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 lenses out there.

 

 

Nikon has set an extremely high standard with the 200/2 for the past 20 years, and even the Canon 200/1.8 L is said to be in that same league, so if Canon can come anywhere near them or match them, let alone beat them, then the Canon 200/2 will be stellar and will easily outperform Canon's other supertelephotos.

[bob jr.]

Thanks for the discussion; very helpful! Peace, Geoff :)

 

- bob

[kyle_heaser]

<p>This was quite an interesting topic that I also found pretty helpful/educational! </p>