Customer Reviews

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The grand appeal of this prime is that offers the telephoto reach and fast f/2.8 aperture of Canon's 70-200/2.8 professional lenses, but at far less cost and size. In practical terms, the 200/2.8 is fast enough to shoot nighttime football games that would have slower f/5.6 consumer zooms struggling to reign in motion blur.

Unlike consumer zooms, it also takes well to a 1.4X teleconverter, giving the equivalent of 280mm at f/4. The USM autofocus system is quick, silent, and sure in almost any lighting, and because this 200/2.8 is essentially a longer version of Canon's legendary 135/2, it's plenty sharp all the way from f/2.8. Finally, because it's small and black, the security at sporting venues is far more likely to let you take it inside.

It's not all roses though. 200mm on a 1.6X crop body is a 320mm equivalent. That's a lot of lens to handhold without stabilization. Pure sharpness doesn't stand for much when the whole frame is blurred by handshake. Despite the fast f/2.8 aperture, it takes a lot of light to keep the shutter speeds up, and this lens isn't all that forgiving below 1/400; good technique and proper bracing are essential. My copy suffers further from color fringing around highlights and loss of contrast in sunlight to a greater extent than any other lens that I own. Shooting into the sun, or with the sun just outside the frame, is not a forte.

If you want versatility, there are also better choices than the 200/2.8. Framing options are limited, and you'll rarely find the composition afforded by 200mm exactly matches what you intended. While the 70-200/2.8 series are no stronger optically than this lens, they'll get the shot every time purely by the ability to track an object at 70mm and rapidly zoom to 200mm to take the picture. The addition of IS (image stabilization) alone doubles the number of keepers on the 70-200/2.8 IS. If your livelihood depends on your results, that's worth the price of admission.

But if you're not molting fifties, and you just want a sharp and fast telephoto that'll manage better shutter speeds, sharpness, background blur, and contrast (in most circumstances) than a consumer zoom, this 200/2.8L is a great choice.

Canon L lenses are known for their great optics and priceyness. This fast tele is an excellent value. Some pictures I took at the Phoenix zoo with this lens are superb. Use your tripod and get tack-sharp images. The only thing that would improve this lens would be the addition of the image stabilizion feature found on a few Canon optics. Of course, the advantage of large aperature lenses is that you can set a fast shutter speed and still have enough light for a shot. This lens is surprisingly compact, (as long focal length teles go). The autofocus is very fast and quiet. Comes with a hood, too.

This lens is Canon's biggest bargain and a rather well kept secret. The 200 f2.8 L lens is an amazing value and has the "red ring", Canon's professional rating. One shoot will convince you of it's value.
Photos taken with this lens are extremely sharp, with colors rich and deep; it takes the 1.4x teleconverter well, adding range. The lens takes sharpening extremely well. I find it easy to handhold, and rarely use my tripod. In comparison, the Canon 70-200 f2.8 was simply impossible for me to use without a tripod; it's size and weight defeated me regardless of the IS. A direct comparison of shots between the smaller 200 f2.8 and the large 70-200 showed the prime in my case to always be superior.
Although the zoom lens are a convenience I personally find I am always at the long end of the telephoto within the 70-200 range. I own 9 Canon lens, owned the 70-200 f2.8 IS L and sold it, keeping this lens in its place. The advantages are many - I find it much sharper, easier to handhold than the white lens at 200, it is possible to take it to affairs where they will not allow the big white lens, and much, much, MUCH less conspicuous. My husband uses the camera on autofocus only, and his shots are outstanding with this lens. He is an artist and has a great eye; matched with this lens he gets what he wants.
The price is outstanding for such high quality;this amazing lens is a genuine bargain in today's camera world. Let's hope that Canon doesn't wise up and price this according to it's quality. Have owned it for several years, definitely a keeper. Buy it - you will not regret it.

There is nothing like a telephoto to bring boats at anchor up close when you're halfway up a mountain. I got a great shot in Tahiti just that way with just this lense and a friend of mine used it on the cover of her romance novel. It's true the lense is heavy. Canon says it weighs 1.7 pounds, but it seems heavier. No matter though, because you won't have to go to the gym if you heft this baby around for awhile, and as a side benifit, you'll get crisper, sharper photos then you would with any other 200mm out there today. Just think of it as body building and photo shooting both at the same time. Also this one won't break your wallet.

Serously, this is one darned fine piece of glass, you just simply cannot go wrong with a Canon "L" lense, just can't

I wanted a f/2.8 lens with 200mm within its range for my trip to Kenya, and decided to go with this lens due to its lower price compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8. While the 70-200mm would have been more versatile when capturing animals on a safari (I got quite a few head shots of elephants and giraffes), the 200mm certainly produced some excellent shots on my digital rebel. It is extremely sharp, and the colours look very natural. Autofocus is fast and accurate, and when manual focus is required (almost never), the focus ring turns evenly with just the right amount of resistance. For a tele lens of such a high standard, it is fairly compact and relatively low priced. I have also used it with a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter, and image quality suffers very little (if any) from that.

its an awesome lens.. f/2.8 DOES make a difference in depth of field and shutter speed .. so comparing this one with the 70-200 f/2.8 its almost half the price and weight and just as fast and sharp if not sharper (it is) .. the fact that it is small and black makes it perfect for travel.. although i don't own the 70-200 f/2.8 i've tried it once or twice and i can't imaging carrying that bazooka in my backpack..

the 70-200 f/4 is what made me think alot before i bought the prime.. if you are trying to make up your mind, consider the fact that 200mm is a long focal length and trying to stop action or wildlife will demand every bit of light you can capture.. most of my action picture shot with this lens, in decent light were in the range of 1/2000 @ iso 400 .. if this was an f/4 it would have been 1/1000 .. you won't get much keepers at that shutter speed..

i recently got a 1.4x teleconverter and i see no change in picture quality when married to the 200mm f/2.8 prime... i love primes ...

Samples
[...]

Interestingly, the price has crept up a bit on this lens in the last few months. It's value must be becoming more apparent to more folks. Nice to have bought before it went up instead of vice versa.

Nevertheless, this is the most reasonably priced of the Canon L Primes & is a perfect one to start out with, if you don't own any yet. This lens is tack sharp, has very true, very vibrant color and high contrast. In all these areas, it is probably just shy of the 135mm, 85mm and 50mm lenses, but this is a discerning eye speaking, and these are subtle (although modestly notable differences). The difference between this and an ordinary Canon lens will be much greater.

As a side note - if you already own either or both the teleconverters (1.4x and 2x), they work very well with this lens. It maintains AF with both, due to it's speed. And this is a small light lens, considering the focal length. With a 2x it becomes a 400mm f/5.6, yet it is much lighter, narrower, and more portable than any comparable variation (the 100-400mm L, or any of the 400mm L primes, of which there are two, plus a non-L DO prime that looks like an L, and might fool you). If you intend to shoot all the way out at 400mm mostly, this is probably the cheapest method, and the quality loss is less with the 2x on this lens than with many/most others.

Whatever your choice, this is probably the most reasonable L value on the market and is a very smart buy if you wish to see what all the fuss is about.

And Yes, the fuss is warranted. L's are that good.

I am a hobbyist and only comment as one here - this is the best lens I've used so far as far as IQ goes. On top, it's light weight, discreet, not too expensive. Somehow I felt the AF on this is not as quick as my 70-200/f4 non IS zoom. Maybe just me. But the IQ (color, contrast, sharpness) on this one simply blows me away, wide open or not. I use this lens shooting in-door head shots of my little 4-yr old. She simply springs to life from this lens! The 200mm on 40D is even better than 5D because it gives the kid more room to be herself. The AF on this lens is not the best in low light. This is true with 40D, 350D Rebel, and 5D. 24-105L under the same condition works much better. This is true even with the build-in flash emitting AF assist beams. With the 580EX however, AF is instant. And so does most other lenses I use. I suspect this has to do with this 200mm lens being of a much older design while the 24-105 is far more recent.


Update April 2011 -

After some years of use mostly on 5D mk1, I get to know more about this lens:
- IQ is great, but not the best. Actually, both 100/f2 and 300/f4L IS seem to be better in many cases. AF is not the quickest either, worse in normal indoor light. Flare can be a problem for this lens if shooting with a bright window in the background. 300F4IS is quite a bit better. 100/f2 is much better. But under normal light, this prime is great.

I sold my Nikon stuff for Canon, I was using the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which was very nice. When I moved to canon I was going to get the Sigma lens again (shooting soccer) I wasn't having any luck finding a used one reasonably priced. I researched the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and decided to try it. I couldn't be happier. The AF is faster and more accurate. It is very easily hand held(I usually put the Sigma on a monopod) I love this lens.

The only reason I have this lens is better picture quality than any zoom in this price range and more. Forget the entire Canon "non L" zooms. They produce muddy non vivid pictures. With the good lighting condition zooms are fine, but any $200 camera can make OK pictures in the good day.
And there is something more to this L lens; I mean better consistency of sharpness and skin colors. You know those nasty reddish skin colors. Not with this lens. Less work on Photoshop.

Not as convenient as zoom?

OK. The next level is.... white Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.
F/2 and IS (Image Stabilization) versus f/2.8 and no image stabilization.
Sharpness level is the same. Any price difference? You check yourself, you will be surpized.