Why few people get 200mm F/2.8L?
- Thread starter dRebelXT
- Start date
- Status
Most manufacturers produce a 70-200/2.8 whose performance at 200/2.8 can easily match the prime (though some would argue that the 200mm prime would be marginally better). Hence, I suspect this would be the main reason for its lack of popularity since the zoom packs in an element of flexibility at little or no cost to the picture quality @ 200mm.
because a 70-200/2.8L is only about 400-500 more. To get similar coverage you would need to invest in an 85/1.8, 135/2.8 and a 200/2.8L. This works out to the same price as a 70-200/2.8L IS. I would personally prefer a set-up with the three primes. Of course most don't think like me and would get the 70-200/2.8L IS. I need the flexibility of the zoom also so I went with 85/1.8 and a 70-200/4. I don't usually need 200/2.8 as I can generally handhold pretty ok at f4. I thus have no real need for the 200/2.8. If it was like 700-750 2nd hand i would buy it though.
Another main reason is that of course a long white lens looks more professional than a stubby black lens.
Another main reason is that of course a long white lens looks more professional than a stubby black lens.
I'd have to agree that the range is probably one of the factors... 70-200 f2.8L gives more flexibility...
i got one! it's useful for times when i need a relatively small and lightweight 2.8 tele lens and didn't want to bring along a monopod/tripod to support a f2.8 tele zoom.
some pics (except the last 3) taken at a concert last year with this lens:
http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/emil2005
some pics (except the last 3) taken at a concert last year with this lens:
http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/emil2005
well, not many people can use primes for the simple reason of lack of discipline, i think. past are the good old days when one 35mm can travel the world.
I agree. For travelling, it is better to get zoom lens. But back at home, if you have a feel of the object that you would be shooting, you will be getting the primes. Else, it would be very inconvenient that during traveling overseas, you need to stop to change a lens, especially during street shooting.
I did consider getting this, but as I already owned the 135f2L, I think it's probably more practical to get a 1.4x tc to get the extra reach. Not really becos of the cost, as the canon tc already cost 50% of the 200f2.8L II, but it's a bit tiring to carry 2 L lens which range is not too far off. Save some space and reduce back strain.
The 70-200f2.8L is so popular and more versatile, & most believe that the sacrifice in terms of quality isn't too significant over the 200mm f2.8L, justifying the purchase of a 135f2L seems to be more easy due to the extra brightness and bokeh @ portrait range, thus the comparison is not as direct..
The 70-200f2.8L is so popular and more versatile, & most believe that the sacrifice in terms of quality isn't too significant over the 200mm f2.8L, justifying the purchase of a 135f2L seems to be more easy due to the extra brightness and bokeh @ portrait range, thus the comparison is not as direct..
135mm F/2 L lens is one of the cheaper and yet sharp L lens around. Retails around SG1350. Thanks Should save up to get one.
Should save up to get one.A lot of people, including myself, probably looked at the price and decided that they'd might as well get a 70-200mm f/4L. The flexibility and speed of having a zoom is advantageous. It's possible to zoom with the feet, but I don't want to whip out my 200mm prime, realize it's too long and have to run like mad away from my subject and still hope to catch a candid shot when I turn around. :sweatsm:
I'll be the candid one when this happens. The 200mm prime is one stop faster at the equivalent focal length, but I find the f/4 quite good in most circumstances.
On another note, I find it difficult to use even the 70-200mm lens in Singapore. Perhaps I have some difficulty 'seeing' the shot, but spaces in this country are just a tad too tight for a telephoto lens. Granted, it's nice, and useful in the right situations, but a lot of the time, 70mm on a 1.6X crop is too long for general shooting, and 200mm is too short for some events and even in the zoo.
Considering that the use of such a lens is already potentially limited, let alone a 200mm prime. However, if I did go overseas to say...Australia, I'd bet the telephoto lens will come in handy. If I got the chance to go to the 12 Apostles again, I'd probably slap on the telephoto zoom straight away. When all the other tourists are shooting the photos that've been taken too many times, I'll be zooming in for something more unusual.
I'll be the candid one when this happens. The 200mm prime is one stop faster at the equivalent focal length, but I find the f/4 quite good in most circumstances.
On another note, I find it difficult to use even the 70-200mm lens in Singapore. Perhaps I have some difficulty 'seeing' the shot, but spaces in this country are just a tad too tight for a telephoto lens. Granted, it's nice, and useful in the right situations, but a lot of the time, 70mm on a 1.6X crop is too long for general shooting, and 200mm is too short for some events and even in the zoo.
Considering that the use of such a lens is already potentially limited, let alone a 200mm prime. However, if I did go overseas to say...Australia, I'd bet the telephoto lens will come in handy. If I got the chance to go to the 12 Apostles again, I'd probably slap on the telephoto zoom straight away. When all the other tourists are shooting the photos that've been taken too many times, I'll be zooming in for something more unusual.
Last time I've checked with MS color, the 135f2L is selling @ around $1300+, the 200f2.8L II is abt $1200+
paradigm said:
wow, worth considering.
For general use, If I already have a 20-35mm f2.8 L, a 90mm f2.8 prime, should I be getting a 135f2L or 200 f2.8L?
I do shot weddings, streets, and sometimes sports
Please advice.
For general use, If I already have a 20-35mm f2.8 L, a 90mm f2.8 prime, should I be getting a 135f2L or 200 f2.8L?
I do shot weddings, streets, and sometimes sports
Please advice.
I would personally get the 200/2.8. For sports you usually need at least 200mm. For field sports you need even longer lengths. It depends entirely on your shooting style really, because 135mm is a length that I hardly ever use and it would be ridiculous for me to plonk down 1000+ on a lens that I have to force myself to use.
May I recommend 135/2.8(just under 400 2nd hand) + 200/2.8 instead? Both are superb lenses. You can then decide which one suits your style better and sell the one that's not really for you. If you eventually pick the 135, you may then decide if you need the extra stop or not.
May I recommend 135/2.8(just under 400 2nd hand) + 200/2.8 instead?
Both are superb lenses. You can then decide which one suits your style better and sell the one that's not really for you. If you eventually pick the 135, you may then decide if you need the extra stop or not.lightning said:
You mentioned you do wedding, street and sports? Of these 2,with the exception of sports, when will 200mm (and above) be truly useful? Think about it. I don't ever see myself wanting to ever get the 200mm prime if i needed the range-i'll rather go for the 70-200 f2.8 then. At least there's more flexibility and i can stack on an extender if i wanted to.
How ever the one stop extra for the 135mm....can prove crucial sometimes. It's a pretty neat length as well when i shoot my concerts.
lightning said:
If I am not wrong, 135 f2L can use with extender both 1.4 X and 2 X too ....
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=34&sort=7&cat=2&page=1
Thanks
- Status
Similar threads
