Anyone using the 200mm/f2.8L tele-photo lens, would appreciate if you can share your experience as well as opinion.
Thanks
Thanks
200mm/f2.8L
- Thread starter Jack Chen
- Start date
- Status
xl1 said:
Thanks for your sharing.
I am actually thinking of this soon, so need to find out more.
Rgds
some samples here (except the last 3): http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/emil2005
no large pics though.
no large pics though.
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
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
trlnlty said:
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.
mpenza said:
Thank you for your sharing.
I have definitely benefited a lot from your sharing from the link.
alus said:
Hi,
Thanks. Your sharing of course worth more than 2-cent... :bsmilie:
Your analysis has provided me a better idea to make the right decision, in the very near future. thank you.
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.
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.
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.
I've used a 70-200 F2.8 L though. It's very sharp when your shutter speed is high.
AhSeng said:
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.
lightning said:
It was allowed for that show ;p They opened my bag, saw my camera and waved me in.
trlnlty said:
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.
sazhar said:
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.
- Status
Similar threads
