Canon 200mm f/2.8L

[Ian Cassell]

Let me apologize in advance if this has been discussed. I turned up nothing in a search.

Does anyone have any experience with this lens (especially with a 1.4x TC)? I know it doesn't have IS, but it is so much less expensive than the 300mm IS f/4L

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

A beautiful lens and great value for money, I carry that my 100 f/2.8 Macro and 135 f/2 L with me when I go walkabout, razor sharp every one of them and fast to boot.

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks, Chris! Have you ever used it with a 1.4X? Frankly, I'm surprised I don't see more about this lens. It is so much less expensive than the 70-200L f/2.8L.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Yes Ian I have used it with the 1.4 on many occasions and it has almost no loss of IQ or focus speed at all.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=7&cat=2&page=1

[Danny J Brown]

I recommend saving a little longer for the 300/4 L IS. I have owned one for four years and it is a joy to use with its razor sharp IQ and wonderful slide out lens hood that is permanently attached. Unfortunately, I rarely use it anymore because it lacks reach, a problem that will be even more evident with the 200/2.8. I have a 70-200/2.8 (also tack sharp) and I only use it for taking photos of friend's pets and kids.........again.....no reach. Just my opinionated opinion. Good luck with whatever you choose!:)

DB

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Ian, Danny makes valid points, but when you become addicted to Prime Lenses, each and every one has its addictive factor and once you find it you are a lost soul to the purity of Primes (of every length)

My most used prime is my 135 f/2 followed by my 300 f/2,8, most folk would say the opposite but I simply love the 135 f/2 .

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks, folks. I have my 400mm f/5.6L and I have my Sigma 100-300mm f/4. Although I like my Sigma, the quality difference between it and my Canon prime is clear to me. It is also bigger and heavier than my 400. I was considering the 70-200 f/2.8, but it is outrageously expensive. I was just floating the idea of that 200 because it is a lens one rarely hears anything about. It is relatively small, unobtrusive (it's black), and it's not outrageously priced.

[Danny J Brown]

Ian, Danny makes valid points, but when you become addicted to Prime Lenses, each and every one has its addictive factor and once you find it you are a lost soul to the purity of Primes (of every length)

My most used prime is my 135 f/2 followed by my 300 f/2,8, most folk would say the opposite but I simply love the 135 f/2 .

Well said, Chris. We do become attached to our gear.

DB

[David Stephens]

The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS works great with the 1.4x TC.

I used to own the 400mm f/5.6L, but was able to move up to the 500mm f/4L IS a few months back. The IQ of the little 70-200mm stands up very well to the stellar 500mm f/4L IS. Unless you really need f/2.8 for something specific, I'd suggest going to the f/4.

[Jamie Douglas]

Hi Ian,

What will you be using this lens for and do you have a budget in mind? Also what focal range are you trying to fill i.e what other lenses do you have besides the Sigma 100-300 and 400mm? If you have a 400mm and nothing less than the 100-300mm then a 200mm would be a better option in my mind than a 300mm.

70-200 F4 IS (new or used) would be my choice if your pirmary focus is wildife and you have a budget. My 70-200 F2.8 IS rarely sees 2.8 but does come in handy now and again for the odd event etc.

Good luck

Jamie

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks for the input folks. This isn't on the 'immediate' list. I was just interested in this piece of glass as it is so rarely mentioned.

[Paul Granone]

I would echo what Danny said. get the 300 F4 IS

it is a very nice lens and produces tack sharp images
I am never disappointed with the results on the 5D II

I use my 300 F4 IS with extension tubes and it acts as an image stabilized macro lens
excellent for butterfly, flowers, bees, spiders, lizards and other small critters

I owned the 200mm F2.8 but ended up selling it. I found the 300 F4 IS more useful and versatile. At least for outdoor shots. For indoors, I use the Sigma 85mm F1.4 instead. Or Canon 135mm F2 is excellent as well.