Reading mode: Light Dark

200 mm f2.8 L -> WOW!!

Go to last post
B

Bob Haverford

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
293
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95% 200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase so far.
 
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
--I have had the same experience. And it is so compact for a "320mm" lens.
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
 
I've been wanting to get this lens because it's small-ish, and black, but the problem is I already have the 70-200mm IS, and the 200mm f/1.8, and a 180mm l macro. Another 200mm lesns would just be silly.
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

 
Eric,

How do you like your 200mm f/1.8 and 180mm macro. I just went to a Wiggles concert in Houston with my little girl and would have liked a bit more reach and any extra speed I could get. I used my 135mm f/2 and it worked well. Although I took my D60 and used ISO 400 I should have taken my 10D and used ISO 800. Oh well! I always seem to want more working room when I use my 100mm USM Macro as well. Thanks!

--
Photography is light!
 
It is a great lens. I often crop a factor of two. That still gives a 256 ppi 4.5x6 print that has high quality. That is 640mm field of view equivalent. I've recently tried a Canon 1.4 teleconverter with this lens. Aside from losing one fstop, it worked very well. For a 4.5x6 print, that is about 900mm. Impressive. Leon
Bill Richardson said:
--I have had the same experience. And it is so compact for a
"320mm" lens.
Click to expand...
 
I am seriously considering this lens
since I will be getting the 28-135 IS, hence when I do
change to 200mm it will mostly like be at 200mm application.

Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
 
I haven't really put the 200mm f/1.8 through a good workout yet, I just got it a couple weeks ago and I've been busy. But just from the test shots I've done I couldn't believe how sharp it stays at f/1.8.

I like the 180mm really well. The tree frog in my sig was taken with it. I'm not sure I could have done it with the 100mm. It's great for dragonflies too.
Marc Brackhahn said:
Eric,
How do you like your 200mm f/1.8 and 180mm macro. I just went to a
Wiggles concert in Houston with my little girl and would have liked
a bit more reach and any extra speed I could get. I used my 135mm
f/2 and it worked well. Although I took my D60 and used ISO 400 I
should have taken my 10D and used ISO 800. Oh well! I always seem
to want more working room when I use my 100mm USM Macro as well.
Thanks!

--
Photography is light!
Click to expand...
--
'The ability to turn molehills into mountains is no small thing.'

 
The 200 2.8 is a great lens, but I traded mine back in for the 70-200 F/4. There were just too many instances where 200mm was too long for sports. Sure, I lost a stop, but I don't think much (if any) sharpness. The convenience of the zoom and $100 lower price were deal makers for me. Never regretted getting the 70-200 F/4 instead.
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
(See profile for equipment I own -- questions welcome.)
 
would you please post few examples? Thank you in adnavnce for your time.
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
--
msa
 
For me size is everything. The 70-200 f/4, though only slightly longer just wouldn't work in my camera case. Also it was grey which I don't like. Yes, the zoom does give you more flexibility, but the decreased size of the 200 is what finally won the day for me. And the pics!! Just unbelievable.

I now have a 17-40 f/4, 28-135 IS, and the 200 f/2.8. Still considering a teleconverter after which I will be done for the foreseeable future. My current setup is optimized for ease of use, flexibility, quality, and value. So far I couldn't be more pleased.
RobE said:
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
(See profile for equipment I own -- questions welcome.)
Click to expand...
 
Bob Haverford said:
I now have a 17-40 f/4, 28-135 IS, and the 200 f/2.8. Still
considering a teleconverter after which I will be done for the
foreseeable future. My current setup is optimized for ease of use,
flexibility, quality, and value. So far I couldn't be more pleased.
RobE said:
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
(See profile for equipment I own -- questions welcome.)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hey Marc, how did you like the concert? They are supposed to be coming to my neck of the woods in November, and I was wondering if you think an 80-200 2.8 would get me anything good with a 10D? Was the show good for adults at all? And how did your daughter enjoy it? I'll be taking all 3 of my daughters.

Thanks in advance

Robert
Marc Brackhahn said:
Eric,
How do you like your 200mm f/1.8 and 180mm macro. I just went to a
Wiggles concert in Houston with my little girl and would have liked
a bit more reach and any extra speed I could get. I used my 135mm
f/2 and it worked well. Although I took my D60 and used ISO 400 I
should have taken my 10D and used ISO 800. Oh well! I always seem
to want more working room when I use my 100mm USM Macro as well.
Thanks!

--
Photography is light!
Click to expand...
 
This picture is a 100% crop taken from the boat travelling at 30 mph in choppy water @ 1/2000.
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=1647

Here's a photo taken @ 1/2000 of a second from a boat moving @ 30 mph. This is a 100% crop.
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
on that pic, did you USM it ?
Bob Haverford said:
Here's a photo taken @ 1/2000 of a second from a boat moving @ 30
mph. This is a 100% crop.
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Straight out of the camera w +2 Sharpening and +1 Saturation added to the JPEG file.
tommyleong said:
Bob Haverford said:
Here's a photo taken @ 1/2000 of a second from a boat moving @ 30
mph. This is a 100% crop.
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Robert Gallop said:
Hey Marc, how did you like the concert? They are supposed to be
coming to my neck of the woods in November, and I was wondering if
you think an 80-200 2.8 would get me anything good with a 10D? Was
the show good for adults at all? And how did your daughter enjoy
it? I'll be taking all 3 of my daughters.

Thanks in advance

Robert
Click to expand...
Robert,

Sorry I never got back to you. I must have lost track of the thread. I hope you check back. The concert was very good in fact we went back the next day to see it again. We got there 2 hours early to make sure we got tickets the second day. The 80-200 should work well. I was using my 135mm f/2 and ISO 400. I was shooting wide open to get the shutter speed I needed but I was also using my D60 instead of my 10D because I use it as my travel lens. With a 10D you can use ISO 800 and get away with it which I will do next time. The show is great for parents/grandparents because you are probably hooked on the songs anyway (hot potato) and you get to see your little munchkin enjoy it so much. My daughter enjoyed very much, in fact she never sat down. She just jumped up and down most of the time. They will have hats, T-shirts, Waggle Tails, Dorothy Tails, and little red cars for sale. They will be up front and at every entrance into the concert hall so take a few extra bucks for that times three in your case.

--
Photography is light!
 
I would be alittle leary on some sigma, its not compatible or I may have just got a bad one. I had the sigma 24-135 f2.8 and all under 50mm focused terribly, all over done exceptional. I returned it for the canon 28-135 hope to have it soon.
tommyleong said:
Although for a cheaper price, I could get 70-200 f4.
that sort of make me reconsider.....

or slightly more $, I can get the SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 which
is most versatile but very heavy ( twice the weight ) and
much longer...
Bob Haverford said:
I just purchased this lens because of its size and quality and all
I can say is WOW!! I'm on vacation in Wisconsin taking pictures of
bald eagles and the kids skiing and the results are simply beyond
belief. I figured that the telephoto would be used at over 95%
200mm and that the trade off in quality and size more than
justified the purchase. I also own the 17-40 f4 L, but there is
just no comparison - still love my 17 - 40 though! Can't post pics
now, but will when I get back.

From a bouncy boat @ 1/2000 I got tack sharp pictures of the kids
on tubes and skiing. The color saturation is beyond belief. What
a lens!!

Purchased a Canon refurbished from B&H for $520. My best purchase
so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top