Any reason I should NOT get the 200 f/2.8L "primepipe"?

E Edwards · Oct 5, 2003

I've been looking for a fast telephoto to use for hiking and general wildlife shots. Currently have a 28-135 IS that I like and would prefer to keep. Have been considering the various 70-200s, but the overlap is significant and I'm not wild about the white lens or the weight of the f/2.8s.

That brings me to the 200 f/2.8L. Fast lens with excellent reviews. Would add to the coverage of the 28-135 rather than overlap. Can add a 1.4 or 2.0 convertor and retain AF.

So are there any "unpublished" drawbacks that I should be aware of? I'm not looking to get into a prime/zoom debate as I tend to use the extreme sides of zooms anyway.

Petteri Sulonen · Oct 5, 2003

E Edwards wrote:
[snip]

I can't really think of anything. It's pretty portable, optically impeccable, focuses in the blink of an eye and sticks like a limpet, and built for life in the trenches.

My only beef is that it may be overkill for my uses. I've found that I have actually not that much use for telephoto. I might end up selling mine for something else. We'll see how much use it gets the next trip abroad...

Petteri
--

Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

drip · Oct 5, 2003

E Edwards said:
I've been looking for a fast telephoto to use for hiking and
general wildlife shots. Currently have a 28-135 IS that I like and
would prefer to keep. Have been considering the various 70-200s,
but the overlap is significant and I'm not wild about the white
lens or the weight of the f/2.8s.

That brings me to the 200 f/2.8L. Fast lens with excellent reviews.
Would add to the coverage of the 28-135 rather than overlap. Can
add a 1.4 or 2.0 convertor and retain AF.

So are there any "unpublished" drawbacks that I should be aware of?
I'm not looking to get into a prime/zoom debate as I tend to use
the extreme sides of zooms anyway.

Go get it!

My 200/2.8L Mark I is the sharpest lens I have owned or used. My copy is sharper than all the 70-200 zooms I have tried. With a 1.4X, it's still sharper than my old copy of 300/4L IS. With a 2X, it still equals my 50-500 in sharpness!!!
BTW, I like you attitude.
--
Brian
San Antonio, TX
Home of the 1999 & 2003 NBA Championships
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

Tamiji Homma · Oct 5, 2003

I have nothing to complain about this lens. I just filled my missing
prime (50, 100, , 400mm) by 2x rule a few weeks back.

It is as sharp as 400/5.6L as far as I can tell if it is not sharper ;-)

I probably use more 200mm. Now I carry 50/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro,
and 200/2.8 in bag for hiking.

Tammy

E Edwards said:
I've been looking for a fast telephoto to use for hiking and
general wildlife shots. Currently have a 28-135 IS that I like and
would prefer to keep. Have been considering the various 70-200s,
but the overlap is significant and I'm not wild about the white
lens or the weight of the f/2.8s.

That brings me to the 200 f/2.8L. Fast lens with excellent reviews.
Would add to the coverage of the 28-135 rather than overlap. Can
add a 1.4 or 2.0 convertor and retain AF.

So are there any "unpublished" drawbacks that I should be aware of?
I'm not looking to get into a prime/zoom debate as I tend to use
the extreme sides of zooms anyway.

E Edwards · Oct 5, 2003

thanks all for the responses and confirmation that this will be a good addition to my bag. I've been keeping my eyes open for a decent deal on a used one, but may just break down and buy new.

Malcolm Stewart · Oct 5, 2003

E Edwards wrote:
snip

E Edwards said:
That brings me to the 200 f/2.8L. Fast lens with excellent reviews.
Would add to the coverage of the 28-135 rather than overlap. Can
add a 1.4 or 2.0 convertor and retain AF.

Others have stressed its sharpness. Mine too is sharp, but what I like, is its contrast. Small areas of colour jump right off the print.

Pity about the (pathetic) lens hood on the Mk 1 - but I carry one of Hoya's rubber collapsible hoods if I really need to shield the front element.

--
Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

E Edwards · Oct 6, 2003

that the other benefit to the 28-135 + 200/2.8 combo is that they share the same filter size (72mm), making it much more economical to buy a set of filters.

E Edwards · Oct 6, 2003

drip said:
Go get it!
My 200/2.8L Mark I is the sharpest lens I have owned or used. My
copy is sharper than all the 70-200 zooms I have tried. With a
1.4X, it's still sharper than my old copy of 300/4L IS. With a 2X,
it still equals my 50-500 in sharpness!!!
BTW, I like you attitude.

Thanks - done and ordered and I'm looking forward to putting it to use. Can I ask you to comment more on your personal use of the 200 with the teleconverters? Your profile shows you have both Canon and Tamron -- any recommendations? I'd probably be looking to add a 2x first.

drip · Oct 6, 2003

E Edwards said:
Thanks - done and ordered and I'm looking forward to putting it to
use. Can I ask you to comment more on your personal use of the 200
with the teleconverters? Your profile shows you have both Canon and
Tamron -- any recommendations? I'd probably be looking to add a 2x
first.

Please check out my comparison here regarding the Canon vs Tamron TC's:
http://www.pbase.com/image/18964373
http://www.pbase.com/image/19024140

In short, the Tamron 1.4X is almost as good as the pricy Canon 1.4. You only see a small degrdation in edge sharpness with the Tamron 1.4X.

The differemce in 2X is bigger. Notice that my Tamron 2X example was somewhat over-exposed. The center is actually quite comparable to Canon's if I had put a -1/2 EC.

In both cases, if you stop down, the Tamron TC's perform essentailly the same as the Canon TC's. If you are fuzzy about image quality, you want the Canon TC's even though they are so over-priced.
--
Brian
San Antonio, TX
Home of the 1999 & 2003 NBA Championships
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

E Edwards · Oct 6, 2003

drip said:
Please check out my comparison here regarding the Canon vs Tamron
TC's:
http://www.pbase.com/image/18964373
http://www.pbase.com/image/19024140
In short, the Tamron 1.4X is almost as good as the pricy Canon 1.4.
You only see a small degrdation in edge sharpness with the Tamron
1.4X.
The differemce in 2X is bigger. Notice that my Tamron 2X example
was somewhat over-exposed. The center is actually quite comparable
to Canon's if I had put a -1/2 EC.
In both cases, if you stop down, the Tamron TC's perform
essentailly the same as the Canon TC's. If you are fuzzy about
image quality, you want the Canon TC's even though they are so
over-priced.

Excellent - thank you very much for sharing those. I do appreciate it.

Adam-T · Oct 6, 2003

The 200F2.8 is basically the long end of the 80-200L Drainpipe with Ring USM added in a FAR lighter package, if you use this focal length a lot and want the compactness then grab one as it's a superb lens - you could save quite a bit of money on getting a used Mk1 which also has a handy built in slide hood like the 300F4L and 400 F5.6L ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

-- Canon EF35-80 F4-5.6 Owners Club Member #3580 -- ;-)

Adam-T · Oct 6, 2003

The Tamrons CAN add some purple fringing to shots unless used with a decent L Prime or sharp L zoom, the amount it adds to a 28-135IS or 70-210USM is horrendous but there is little added to the 300F4 or 80-200L..

The price difference is incredible - I paid £35 for a second hand Tamron 1.4 and a new canon is about £335 (that's 536 US Buckarooz folks!) I can live with a bit of fringing for that diffrerence!
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

-- Canon EF35-80 F4-5.6 Owners Club Member #3580 -- ;-)

E Edwards · Oct 6, 2003

Adam-T said:
The 200F2.8 is basically the long end of the 80-200L Drainpipe with
Ring USM added in a FAR lighter package, if you use this focal
length a lot and want the compactness then grab one as it's a
superb lens - you could save quite a bit of money on getting a used
Mk1 which also has a handy built in slide hood like the 300F4L and
400 F5.6L ..

Thanks for the comments. I've looked a few used ones on eBay, but didn't feel comfortable with them for one reason or another, so I bit the bullet and ordered a new one from B&H -- it's my first "L" and the ease of mind is worth it.

Tamiji Homma · Oct 6, 2003

Tamiji Homma said:
I have nothing to complain about this lens. I just filled my missing
prime (50, 100, , 400mm) by 2x rule a few weeks back.

OK, correction ;-) I have one thing to complain ;-(

During last weekend, the lens hood cracked. Lens build quality is
pretty good but not hood.

It is still usable but ugly. Canon definitely needs to improve the hood.
400/5.6L hood feels much more solid.

Tammy

David Kieltyka · Oct 6, 2003

drip said:
In short, the Tamron 1.4X is almost as good as the pricy Canon 1.4.

The Tamron 1.4x (the "pro" version, or somesuch) works fine & dandy with my 200mm f/2.8. I can also use it with the 100mm f/2, which is why I chose it over the Canon 1.4x.

-Dave-

E Edwards · Oct 6, 2003

David Kieltyka said:
The Tamron 1.4x (the "pro" version, or somesuch) works fine & dandy
with my 200mm f/2.8. I can also use it with the 100mm f/2, which is
why I chose it over the Canon 1.4x.

Thanks for the input, David. It sounds like the less expensive Tamron will work just fine for 1.4x, but Canon is the way to go for 2x if you want to use a full aperature range.

E Edwards · Oct 6, 2003

Tamiji Homma said:
During last weekend, the lens hood cracked. Lens build quality is
pretty good but not hood.

It is still usable but ugly. Canon definitely needs to improve the
hood.
400/5.6L hood feels much more solid.

Was that the built-in hood on the I or the separate II hood?

Tamiji Homma · Oct 6, 2003

E Edwards said:
E Edwards said:

During last weekend, the lens hood cracked. Lens build quality is
pretty good but not hood.

It is still usable but ugly. Canon definitely needs to improve the
hood.
400/5.6L hood feels much more solid.

Click to expand...

Was that the built-in hood on the I or the separate II hood?

It is separate hood. Cheap plastic hood. The hood thread on lens
was pretty tight and it is difficult to align and screw it in.

I wonder if it is under warranty or not...

Tammy

David Kieltyka · Oct 6, 2003

Tamiji Homma said:
Tamiji Homma said:

Was that the built-in hood on the I or the separate II hood?

Click to expand...

It is separate hood. Cheap plastic hood. The hood thread on lens
was pretty tight and it is difficult to align and screw it in.

I wonder if it is under warranty or not...

That Canon hood is very effective but huge . I replaced it with a screw-on hood about half as deep. Works fine...the lens is very flare resistant anyway.

-Dave-

E Edwards · Oct 8, 2003

Adam-T said:
superb lens - you could save quite a bit of money on getting a used
Mk1 which also has a handy built in slide hood like the 300F4L and
400 F5.6L ..

FWIW: I've second-guessed myself, cancelled the order and will look for a used Mk1...

Any reason I should NOT get the 200 f/2.8L "primepipe"?

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts