200mm/f2.8L

[Jack Chen]

Anyone using the 200mm/f2.8L tele-photo lens, would appreciate if you can share your experience as well as opinion.
Thanks

[xl1]

good, small and compact, easy to carry, and sharp, some sample here.

[ndroo]

Originally Posted by xl1 good, small and compact, easy to carry, and sharp, some sample here.

Looks yummy! Bet the price ain't compact though

[Jack Chen]

Originally Posted by xl1 good, small and compact, easy to carry, and sharp, some sample here.

Thanks for your sharing.
I am actually thinking of this soon, so need to find out more.
Rgds

[mpenza]

some samples here (except the last 3): http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/emil2005

no large pics though.

[trlnlty]

the 70-200 2.8 L

can be had for 400 more and at 95% of the IQ with the versatility of the zoom.

[JediForce4ever]

Originally Posted by trlnlty the 70-200 2.8 L can be had for 400 more and at 95% of the IQ with the versatility of the zoom.

but of course..you loose sharpness

[alus]

Comparing to 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

200mm f/2.8L
- smaller and much lighter (less "intruding" to the subject for street photography)
- cost less than half of the other
- it could be sharper than the zoom
- but no IS. The question is how frequent you shoot at f/2.8. IS could benefit in getting a sharp result when shooting without tripod at 200mm under low light/ shutter speed.

70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
- focal range advantage
- IS

So, depending on the shooting style.

My 2-cent worth

[Jack Chen]

Originally Posted by trlnlty the 70-200 2.8 L can be had for 400 more and at 95% of the IQ with the versatility of the zoom.

Hi,

70-200mm/f2.8 (non IS) costs about $2.4k, while 200mm/f2.8 is about $1.3k both quoted by CP..
BTW thks for your kind opinion.

[Jack Chen]

Originally Posted by mpenza some samples here (except the last 3): http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/emil2005 no large pics though.

Thank you for your sharing.
I have definitely benefited a lot from your sharing from the link.

[Jack Chen]

Originally Posted by alus Comparing to 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 200mm f/2.8L - smaller and much lighter (less "intruding" to the subject for street photography) - cost less than half of the other - it could be sharper than the zoom - but no IS. The question is how frequent you shoot at f/2.8. IS could benefit in getting a sharp result when shooting without tripod at 200mm under low light/ shutter speed. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM - focal range advantage - IS So, depending on the shooting style. My 2-cent worth

Hi,

Thanks. Your sharing of course worth more than 2-cent...
Your analysis has provided me a better idea to make the right decision, in the very near future. thank you.

[JediForce4ever]

Actually, if you are getting the 200f2.8L, I would instead recommend you the 135f2L.
Much better sharpness and bokeh.With the resolution, when you need 200mm, just crop.You wont loose much details.
And its about the same price.

[lightning]

Originally Posted by mpenza some samples here (except the last 3): http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/emil2005 no large pics though.

I am wondering how you get to take pics during concert? Are photography allowed?

[AhSeng]

What are you going to use it for??? If you use it for shooting at night or dim light, forget it. Get the IS. At 200mm, i dun think anyone can handhold steady to get a clean shot at night/Dim light.

I've used a 70-200 F2.8 L though. It's very sharp when your shutter speed is high.

[trlnlty]

Originally Posted by AhSeng What are you going to use it for??? If you use it for shooting at night or dim light, forget it. Get the IS. At 200mm, i dun think anyone can handhold steady to get a clean shot at night/Dim light. I've used a 70-200 F2.8 L though. It's very sharp when your shutter speed is high.

the 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the sharpest zooms you can get out there.

the only reason i can see you getting the 200mm 2.8 is due to size reasons, other than that, picture quality wise, i think they are pretty similiar ....

which is probably why the 200 2.8 does not sell very well.

[sazhar]

Is this lens suitable for photographing Butterflies & dragonflies when it requires you take photos at distance min 5ft.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by lightning I am wondering how you get to take pics during concert? Are photography allowed?

It was allowed for that show They opened my bag, saw my camera and waved me in.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by trlnlty the 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the sharpest zooms you can get out there. the only reason i can see you getting the 200mm 2.8 is due to size reasons, other than that, picture quality wise, i think they are pretty similiar .... which is probably why the 200 2.8 does not sell very well.

That's true. The 70-200/2.8Ls are as good as, if not better than, the 200/2.8L optically. I got the 200/2.8L mainly cos of the size/weight advantage and the low(er) price.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by sazhar Is this lens suitable for photographing Butterflies & dragonflies when it requires you take photos at distance min 5ft.

at 5 feet, the dragonflies or butterflies won't be too big in the frame. The dedicated macro lenses would be more useful in my opinion.

[akdwivedi]

the 200f/2.8 is lighter and very handholdable for long times.. comparatively I need to pump up my muscles to be able to hold 70-200 f/2.8L for a long shoot out..