Canon's sleeper

One of the two sharpest lenses I've ever seen. Sharper, even, than the much vaunted 70-200 F:2.8 IS USM. This lens easily has the best bokeh I've ever seen. USM motor is fast and can have the stroke shortened for even faster focusing. The only thing I wish is that Canon would include the $200 tripod mount with the lens. Fortunately the tripod mount from the 70-200 F:4 USM (non-IS) will fit. Absolutely amazing lens for well under $1000.

.....200mm 2.8 is my choice sports lens at professional stadiums, since there's lens length restriction of less than 8 inches. I just add the 1.4x extender at my seat....done!  I get great results!

1962sg wrote:

One of the two sharpest lenses I've ever seen. Sharper, even, than the much vaunted 70-200 F:2.8 IS USM. This lens easily has the best bokeh I've ever seen. USM motor is fast and can have the stroke shortened for even faster focusing. The only thing I wish is that Canon would include the $200 tripod mount with the lens. Fortunately the tripod mount from the 70-200 F:4 USM (non-IS) will fit. Absolutely amazing lens for well under $1000.

It don't beat the 70-200f2.8L IS II at 200mms, at any setting. You say its one of two of the sharpest lenses you've ever seen. How many have you seen?

I use mine for candid shots and lately instead of the 180 macro . + a little cropping

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

1962sg wrote:

One of the two sharpest lenses I've ever seen. Sharper, even, than the much vaunted 70-200 F:2.8 IS USM. This lens easily has the best bokeh I've ever seen. USM motor is fast and can have the stroke shortened for even faster focusing. The only thing I wish is that Canon would include the $200 tripod mount with the lens. Fortunately the tripod mount from the 70-200 F:4 USM (non-IS) will fit. Absolutely amazing lens for well under $1000.

It don't beat the 70-200f2.8L IS II at 200mms, at any setting. You say its one of two of the sharpest lenses you've ever seen. How many have you seen?

I have both (the 200 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8L IS II). I would say they are about the same at 200mm. Both very sharp indeed. If doing a comparison, it's important to really crank up the shutter speed. The IS on the zoom gives an advantage for critical focus at any speeds under 1/1000. Remember, the 1/focal length guideline is just that, a guideline. The greater the magnification, the more you'll see some camera shake, even at quite high speeds, especially on crop cameras. I use my 200 prime on my 7D for basketball (not allowed the zoom, because it's too long), and shoot at 1/1000. Even then, it could be a bit sharper with a faster shutter speed.

I often use my 20mm f2.8L with my 60D for candids.  It was like the two were made for each other.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

1962sg wrote:

One of the two sharpest lenses I've ever seen. Sharper, even, than the much vaunted 70-200 F:2.8 IS USM. This lens easily has the best bokeh I've ever seen. USM motor is fast and can have the stroke shortened for even faster focusing. The only thing I wish is that Canon would include the $200 tripod mount with the lens. Fortunately the tripod mount from the 70-200 F:4 USM (non-IS) will fit. Absolutely amazing lens for well under $1000.

It don't beat the 70-200f2.8L IS II at 200mms, at any setting. You say its one of two of the sharpest lenses you've ever seen. How many have you seen?

I have both (the 200 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8L IS II). I would say they are about the same at 200mm. Both very sharp indeed. If doing a comparison, it's important to really crank up the shutter speed. The IS on the zoom gives an advantage for critical focus at any speeds under 1/1000. Remember, the 1/focal length guideline is just that, a guideline. The greater the magnification, the more you'll see some camera shake, even at quite high speeds, especially on crop cameras. I use my 200 prime on my 7D for basketball (not allowed the zoom, because it's too long), and shoot at 1/1000. Even then, it could be a bit sharper with a faster shutter speed.

I have both (the 200 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8L IS II). I would say they are about the same at 200mm. ....YOU ARE CORRECT

I like my 200 f/2.8 on 5D2 for resolution and handling. I've been tempted by the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for convenience, but the length, weight and price are not so nice. Then again, I keep a 100 f/2 in the holster in case the 200 is too long. If you add the weights of the 100 and 200, you are approaching the weight of the 70-200. Sometimes I think trading the 100 and 200 for the 135 f/2 would be a nice trade off. Bottom line: the 200 is a great lens for a great price, since it probably get overlooked by the much more popular 135.

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

1962sg wrote:

One of the two sharpest lenses I've ever seen. Sharper, even, than the much vaunted 70-200 F:2.8 IS USM. This lens easily has the best bokeh I've ever seen. USM motor is fast and can have the stroke shortened for even faster focusing. The only thing I wish is that Canon would include the $200 tripod mount with the lens. Fortunately the tripod mount from the 70-200 F:4 USM (non-IS) will fit. Absolutely amazing lens for well under $1000.

It don't beat the 70-200f2.8L IS II at 200mms, at any setting. You say its one of two of the sharpest lenses you've ever seen. How many have you seen?

Based on DxOMark scores it can easily be true depending on what you are looking for, body used, and position of subject in the frame. The question may not be how many lenses have you seen but how many copies of the same lens have you seen. Because a good copy of either should be difficult to tell apart, and a better copy of one, would easily beat a poor copy of the other.

DxOMark overall says the 200mm f2.8 prime has the better transmission and vignetting scores, it is not quite up to scratch wide open dead center, but its midframe sharpness is excellent. At f4 the f200 mm f2.8 prime actually pulls ahead at midframe sharpness (the zoom is always ahead in dead center).

The Nikon 58mm 1.4 is another lens that is quite good dead center but pretty poor in mid-frame. This is why it DxOMark rating is not that high even though arguably its 'sharpness' score on the summary does a bit better. Likewise the 70-200 f2.8 IS II does *much* better on the 'sharpness' score due to better dead-center performance, but its DxOMark rating is not significantly different over various bodies.

But online tests aside, I'd have to agree its a sleeper lens...like the 85mm and 100mm are siblings if you look at the release date and build of the 200mm f2.8 II prime its sibling is the commonly more expensive and extremely real-regarded 135mm f2. But the 200mm f2.8 II prime is to the 135 f2 as is the 100mm f2 is to the 85mm f1.8. So if 200 mm is the focal length you desire...its an incredible value.

I think the biggest thing compared to the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is the lack of flourite coating (like the 135mm f2) in which case it doesn't have top-notch CA/contrast especially wide open in comparison.  After some PP or CA corrections however it would be very difficult to tell apart I'd bet.

Regarding shutter speed, this could be a deal-breaker for some people.  I shoot with a 6D, own several "L" lenses, including the 135f2 and the 24-70mkii, which may put my comments into some context.  So shutter speed? The rule for shutter speed and teles doesn't work for me.  I sometimes get sharp shots at 1/250, but this is not at all consistent.  I don't have shakey hands, am reasonably fit and strong so feel that my comments will resonate with many photographers.  I recommend 1/500 and higher.  I can still get shake at >1/1000.  So even at high shutter speeds, build in some redundancy and take a few more shots.  The 200 is not easy to handhold and so you will probably find yourself at f2.8 more often, which is very good but not this lens' strongest aperture, and at higher ISOs, which may not suit crop sensor camera users in particular. And if you're like me, you will take more duds than when using you 24-104 or 50mm.  Even the 135m is more consistent handheld, and it's only a little shorter.  Now that is a very fine lens.

So it's a sharp lens with great out-of-focus backgrounds, light and inconspicuous, and if you can keep the speed well up and grab a few extra shots to replace the duds, just the ticket.  I've been walking around all over the place with this lens, shooting scenery, other people's weddings, architecture, the granddaughter, street scenes, and have hardly had the 200mm off my camera, just making sure I get to know it before heading overseas with it.  I must say that I only discovered the joy of this lens when I abandoned that reciprocal focal length rule that governs/guides shutter speed.  It is a top lens when you get the shot, but I think I'd go the 70-2002.8 IS for those real high-stakes shoots like weddings, but otherwise, the 200 is perfect for a hobbyist like me.