Author Topic: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L - impressions? (Read 4818 times)

Xalanx · « **on:** April 05, 2010, 13:29 »

I will buy THIS this Wednesday. Anyone having it? Any issues?
It will be primarily used as outdoor portrait / action lens, not in studio (too long). I preffered it over 135mm for the bit of extra reach and the way it takes the 1.4x TC.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2010, 13:43 »

There's 140 reports on here from users that seem to like it __ it's got a 9.8/10 rating.

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

Xalanx · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2010, 13:55 »

yea, FM forums is one of the first places to check when buying some gear. I find funny when at "Cons" some people write <<Its not a zoom>>. I mean - no, really?!

sharply_done · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2010, 13:59 »

I was satisfied with its performance and never had any issues with it. I bought it on the oft-told advice 'prime lenses are better than zooms', but ended up selling it because I wasn't using it enough to justify owning it - I often preferred to use a 70-200mm for the broader working range.

Xalanx · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2010, 14:32 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 05, 2010, 13:59

I was satisfied with its performance and never had any issues with it. I bought it on the oft-told advice 'prime lenses are better than zooms', but ended up selling it because I wasn't using it enough to justify owning it - I often preferred to use a 70-200mm for the broader working range.

Thanks for input. I'm mostly into primes, the only zoom I have is the 17-40mm f/4L and that's because the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is too expensive for me now.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2010, 15:12 »

It is quite an awesome lens. It is sharp wide open, even better than the 135 2.0 which I always stop down to 2.2, but the 200 I always use wide open. It is a specialty lens, because indeed it is not a zoom

But it is one of my preferred lenses for outdoor portraits. I am a wedding photographer so I use it quite a bit for wedding portraits.

Xalanx · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2010, 15:40 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on April 05, 2010, 15:12

It is quite an awesome lens. It is sharp wide open, even better than the 135 2.0 which I always stop down to 2.2, but the 200 I always use wide open.

That's how I was planning to use it too. I heard is sharp from edge to edge wide open and that's important to me.

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2010, 17:30 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 05, 2010, 13:59

I was satisfied with its performance and never had any issues with it. I bought it on the oft-told advice 'prime lenses are better than zooms', but ended up selling it because I wasn't using it enough to justify owning it - I often preferred to use a 70-200mm for the broader working range.

My story exactly too. It had beautiful clarity, color, sharpness, etc. Just never used it because of the fixed focal length. I don't like to have to carry a bag full of lenses for a day of shooting, and there are very few days I would only want to shoot everything at 200mm.

Xalanx · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2010, 17:50 »

Leg-zoom is more healthy, Lisa

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2010, 17:52 »

While I am all for exercise, I would have to back into the next city, or more likely the Gulf of Mexico, to get a wide shot with that thing

Xalanx · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2010, 18:00 »

Or make a pano from like... 30 shots from where you stand, if you forget to put in the bag the little 17-40

Xalanx · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2010, 12:59 »

I have it, just got back from the store now. Great glass, it's surely a keeper!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L - impressions? (Read 4818 times)

Xalanx

gostwyck

Xalanx

sharply_done

Xalanx

Freezingpictures

Xalanx

lisafx

Xalanx

lisafx

Xalanx

Xalanx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors