Often-overlooked Canon 200mm 2.8L

The Canon 200 2.8L doesn't get talked about a lot - I'm guessing it's due in large part to photographers preferring the versatility of the 70-200 line of tele-zooms, and maybe because it doesn't quite attain the near-legendary (in my mind) status of the 135 2.0L

My primary subject of interest is live music photography, and although my first choice is to take my 135, there are occasions when I'll grab the 200 if I think I'll need a little more reach, and it's during these times that I'm reminded how good of a lens it is, and wonder why I don't use it more often (actually, I know why, but that's beside the point of this post :-P)

I was catching some of the NXNE performances in downtown Toronto over the weekend. I'm at least 30 feet back from the stage... my view of the left half of the stage is compromised by people in front of me, and obviously I can't move, so I really don't have high expectations of getting any decent shots. I snap a bunch "just in case", thinking I can perhaps rescue a few in post-processing.

Well, I have to say that this is one of the few occasions where, given the circumstances, the end results were much better than I was expecting

I gave the 200 f/2.8 serious consideration and opted for the 135 f/2 only after evaluating focal length usage at venues (smaller than where your example images were shot) I expected to be frequenting.  I wonder whether Canon will ever add IS to either one of them.

or just a bit of weather sealing and updated glass coating. The135mm f/2 & 200mm 2.8 were two of my favorites.

Smaller venues are actually what I typically shoot, where the 135 really shines.

When I upgraded from crop to FF, I thought it would be beneficial to have a prime lens with a similar reach on FF as the 135 on a crop sensor, since I was accustomed to shooting that combination, hence the 200mm purchase.

I've actually thought of selling the 200 on a few occasions, but it produces quality results, and gets just enough use for me to keep it around

I have both the 135 and the 200 and they are both fantastic lenses

Dags wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

I have both the 135 and the 200 and they are both fantastic lenses

likewise have both, use 135mm f2 often, it was just about my most used lens on a recent Vietnam trip. I use the 200 very rarely, not that its inferior, just find 135 focal length more useful and rarely want to carry both.

Really enjoyed your Vietnam shots.  You achieved some perspectives in Halong Bay that I don't believe were available to us on our vessel.  Fascinating country.  Wonderful people.  Delicious food.

I used a 200mm f2.8 lens in high school in the mid 1980's. This was our school's "sports lens". Yes, we didn't even have a 300mm f4 since that lens was even more expensive.

I saw a 200mm f2.8 lens for sale (I think it was $700) and bought it never thinking I would use it for anything since I have the 70-200mm f2.8 II and I use the 135mm f2 all the time.  I started using it whenever I was going to be shooting at 200mm the whole time. It didn't have the weight of the zoom lens and was much smaller to carry around. I always carry it on hikes because it's useful to have a long lens in my backpack in case I see an animal or a mountain.

Ever wondered what happens when you use this lens with a 1.4X teleconverter? Here's a shot with the Mark III version of the teleconverter. It's not bad and about what I got with the 300mm f4 when I shot it wide open.

I find it's a true gem for child portraiture. 200mm on full-frame gives me enough reach to stay unobtrusive, but still get close framing and substantial subject isolation. My copy is the older mark 1 version, but I still love the color rendition, bokeh, and focusing speed. Not to mention it's pretty light for it's focal length. I think the best thing about this lens is its price; mine was about $400 less than a used copy of the Canon 135mm F/2L.

These are a few photos with it and my 6D II of my nieces in the front yard from a couple days ago (OOC JPEGs). Mostly stayed between F/3.5 and F/4.

ISO 100, F/4, 1/400

ISO 100, F/4, 1/1000

ISO 100, F/3.5, 1/800

ISO 100, F/3.5, 1/250

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

You had good light there. 200/2.8 without IS is not very useful to me.

You know, a wicked sharp 200 / 2.8L IS that worked well with 1.4x and 2x TCs would be just the ticket. That said, I don't see Canon updating that lens soon. I mean, they've new versions of their 70-200s and still not updated the 50 / 1.4, 85 / 1.8, and 100 / 2, or, perhaps, more to the point, they've not updated the 300 / 4L IS or 400 / 5.6L.

I don't think the 400/5.6 will ever get an update. That appeals to a pretty niche market, and the target audience that would take it over a 100-400 or 300/4+TC seems quite content with it as it is: simple and inexpensive.

I also don't see the 100/2 getting updated, chiefly because that's a weird FL on crop so an 85 will always sell better.

Part of the reason the other primes have been slow to get updates is because a lot of people favor the 70-200/2.8, 100-400, 85/1.4. Don't mistake my meaning - I agree that a light and modestly fast prime can best a heavy fast zoom or ultra-fast prime. I actually replaced my own 100-400L with a 300/4L IS. It just seems not a lot of marketers see it that way... especially not the bodybuilder wannabes at Sigma!

I do suspect we'll be seeing a new 50 and 135 soon, and I'd also bet some new DO lenses are in the works since I doubt Canon is willing to cede the Fresnel market to Nikon.

Great Bustard wrote:

A 135 / 2L IS would be coveted by many and a 50 / 1.4 IS would definitely be on a lot of people's list. However, watch a 50 / 1.2L II come out before a 50 / 1.4 IS -- not that I wouldn't have a keen interest in that lens, mind you.

Actually, I recall seeing the patent abstracts for a 50/1.4 IS and 50/1.8 IS a while back. A patent is by no means a guarantee, but we can hope!

An example of how I use my 200mm

Another example

Trevor Sowers wrote:

An example of how I use my 200mm

Another example

Very nice.  When I see such images I wonder how the wedding dress is kept clean.

Dave wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

An example of how I use my 200mm

Another example

Very nice. When I see such images I wonder how the wedding dress is kept clean.

It isn't LOL

Brian Lund wrote:

Quite a few years back I got a great deal on a used Mk 1, it's one of my sharpest lenses!

Occasionally I like to use it in place of my 70-200mm f/2.8L (also mk 1) because of the superior image quality.

I have only seen one Canon 200mm f2.8L mark I lens; it was in the used equipment case at a local camera store.  I would have bought it, but I already have the mark II version of the lens I bought at Ritz Camera (now defunct) in 2000.  I don't use the lens a whole lot, but when I do, I love using it, and it takes wonderful images (when I'm on my game).  I don't see Canon ever updating this lens.  I have only seen one other person using one, compared to the gazillions who use the 70-200mm f2.8L variants.  If Canon does ever produce a 200mm f2.8L III or 200mm f2.8 IS lens, they be up to the 70-200mm f2.8L XXVII.