|Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
|List Price: $1100.00
Our Price: $695.00
You Save: $405.00 (37%)
200mm f/2.8 is ideal for concerts and sports and candids and many other types of pictures where a telephoto lens may be required Filter Size - 72mm Max. Diameter x Length - 3.3 x 5.4 Unit Weight - 1.7 lbs.
Zoom in on a favorite subject from a distance with the Canon EF 200mm telephoto lens. Offering a long focal length that lets you effectively compress the distance between the subject and camera, the lens lets you easily capture the details and feeling of a far-off scene. The lens is distinguished by two ultra-low-dispersion (UD) glass elements and a rear focusing system to correct aberrations, producing extremely sharp images. The lens also offers a natural-looking background blur and comes with a dedicated, detachable hood. The lens carries a one-year warranty.
- Focal length: 200mm
- Maximum aperture: f/2.8
- Lens construction: 9 elements in 7 groups
- Diagonal angle of view: 12 degrees
- Focus adjustment: Rear focusing system with USM
- Closest focusing distance: 4.9 feet
- Filter size: 72mm
- Dimensions: 3.3 inches in diameter, 5.4 inches long
- Weight: 1.7 pounds
- 200mm telephoto lens with f/2.8 maximum aperture for Canon SLR cameras
- 2 ultra-low-dispersion (UD) glass elements and rear focusing system
- Ultra-sonic monitor (USM) for quick, highly accurate autofocusing
- 4.9-foot close focusing distance; produces natural-looking background blur
- Measures 3.3 inches in diameter and 5.4 inches long; weighs 1.7 pounds
- Top of the line!!!
This is a 5 star lens. If you want a lens much smaller that the 70-200 2.8L and 70-200 F4L but want the quality the 200 F2.8L is the way to go. I purchased the 70-200 F4 and found it just a little to big. The 200 2.8 is perfect.I have also gotton excellent bokeh with this lens.
Pic here to see bokeh photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2820979
If you are looking for an all in one lens go buy a 28-300 zoom. This is not that lens....more info
- A wonderful lens
I sold my Nikon stuff for Canon, I was using the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which was very nice. When I moved to canon I was going to get the Sigma lens again (shooting soccer) I wasn't having any luck finding a used one reasonably priced. I researched the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and decided to try it. I couldn't be happier. The AF is faster and more accurate. It is very easily hand held(I usually put the Sigma on a monopod) I love this lens....more info
- Love this lens!
This prime lens is absolutely fantastic. It's fast to focus and quite versatile. The bokeh is stunning.
I tried it with an extension tube this morning and it was even more spectacular. The minimum focusing distance was much shorter with no degradation of image quality.
You won't go wrong if you choose this lens....more info
- Excellent for what it is, but look elsewhere for versatility
The grand appeal of this prime is that offers the telephoto reach and fast f/2.8 aperture of Canon's 70-200/2.8 professional lenses, but at far less cost and size. In practical terms, the 200/2.8 is fast enough to shoot nighttime football games that would have slower f/5.6 consumer zooms struggling to reign in motion blur.
Unlike consumer zooms, it also takes well to a 1.4X teleconverter, giving the equivalent of 280mm at f/4. The USM autofocus system is quick, silent, and sure in almost any lighting, and because it's essentially a longer version of Canon's legendary 135/2, this 200/2.8 is plenty sharp all the way from f/2.8. Finally, because it's small and black, the security at sporting venues is far more likely to let you take it inside.
It's not all roses though. 200mm on a 1.6X crop body is a 320mm equivalent. That's a lot of lens to handhold without stabilization. Pure sharpness doesn't stand for much when the whole frame is blurred by handshake. Despite the fast f/2.8 aperture, it takes a lot of light to keep the shutter speeds up, and this lens isn't all that forgiving below 1/400; good technique and proper bracing are essential. My copy suffers further from chromatic aberration (color fringing around highlights) and loss of contrast in sunlight to a greater extent than any other lens that I own. Shooting into the sun, or with the sun just outside the frame, is not a forte. I'd dock a star for this if Amazon would let me.
If you want versatility, there are also better choices than the 200/2.8. Framing options are limited, and you'll rarely find the composition afforded by 200mm exactly matches what you intended. While the 70-200/2.8 series are no stronger optically than this lens, they'll get the shot every time purely by the ability to track an object at 70mm, and rapidly zoom to 200mm to take the picture. The addition of IS (image stabilization) alone doubles the number of keepers on the 70-200/2.8 IS. If your livelihood depends on your results, that's worth the price of admission.
But if you're not molting fifties, and you just want a sharp and fast telephoto that'll manage better shutter speeds, sharpness, background blur, and contrast (in most circumstances) than a consumer zoom, this 200/2.8L is a great choice. ...more info
- Super "L" Lens, Price not too Bad Either
There is nothing like a telephoto to bring boats at anchor up close when you're halfway up a mountain. I got a great shot in Tahiti just that way with just this lense and a friend of mine used it on the cover of her romance novel. It's true the lense is heavy. Canon says it weighs 1.7 pounds, but it seems heavier. No matter though, because you won't have to go to the gym if you heft this baby around for awhile, and as a side benifit, you'll get crisper, sharper photos then you would with any other 200mm out there today. Just think of it as body building and photo shooting both at the same time. Also this one won't break your wallet.
Serously, this is one darned fine piece of glass, you just simply cannot go wrong with a Canon "L" lense, just can't...more info
- Sharp, sharp, sharp....a wonderful lens at a great price
This lens is Canon's biggest bargain and a rather well kept secret. The 200 f2.8 L lens is an amazing value and has the "red ring", Canon's professional rating. One shoot will convince you of it's value.
Photos taken with this lens are extremely sharp, with colors rich and deep; it takes the 1.4x teleconverter well, adding range. The lens takes sharpening extremely well. I find it easy to handhold, and rarely use my tripod. In comparison, the Canon 70-200 f2.8 was simply impossible for me to use without a tripod; it's size and weight defeated me regardless of the IS. A direct comparison of shots between the smaller 200 f2.8 and the large 70-200 showed the prime in my case to always be superior.
Although the zoom lens are a convenience I personally find I am always at the long end of the telephoto within the 70-200 range. I own 9 Canon lens, owned the 70-200 f2.8 IS L and sold it, keeping this lens in its place. The advantages are many - I find it much sharper, easier to handhold than the white lens at 200, it is possible to take it to affairs where they will not allow the big white lens, and much, much, MUCH less conspicuous. My husband uses the camera on autofocus only, and his shots are outstanding with this lens. He is an artist and has a great eye; matched with this lens he gets what he wants.
The price is outstanding for such high quality;this amazing lens is a genuine bargain in today's camera world. Let's hope that Canon doesn't wise up and price this according to it's quality. Have owned it for several years, definitely a keeper. Buy it - you will not regret it....more info
- The perfect lens to start you with L Primes
Interestingly, the price has crept up a bit on this lens in the last few months. It's value must be becoming more apparent to more folks. Nice to have bought before it went up instead of vice versa.
Nevertheless, this is the most reasonably priced of the Canon L Primes & is a perfect one to start out with, if you don't own any yet. This lens is tack sharp, has very true, very vibrant color and high contrast. In all these areas, it is probably just shy of the 135mm, 85mm and 50mm lenses, but this is a discerning eye speaking, and these are subtle (although modestly notable differences). The difference between this and an ordinary Canon lens will be much greater.
As a side note - if you already own either or both the teleconverters (1.4x and 2x), they work very well with this lens. It maintains AF with both, due to it's speed. And this is a small light lens, considering the focal length. With a 2x it becomes a 400mm f/5.6, yet it is much lighter, narrower, and more portable than any comparable variation (the 100-400mm L, or any of the 400mm L primes, of which there are two, plus a non-L DO prime that looks like an L, and might fool you). If you intend to shoot all the way out at 400mm mostly, this is probably the cheapest method, and the quality loss is less with the 2x on this lens than with many/most others.
Whatever your choice, this is probably the most reasonable L value on the market and is a very smart buy if you wish to see what all the fuss is about.
And Yes, the fuss is warranted. L's are that good. ...more info
- Canon 200mm f/2.8 L lens
This lens is excellent optically. Outstanding performance when used wide open at f/2.8. It is a little on the heavy side weight wise though....more info
- Type II
This lens was purchased for use with the XTI. For me this replaced a 300mm F2.8 FD on an F1. The detachable lens shade is frail and bulky and therefore of little use to me (the discontinued Type I apparently had a built in hood). The tripod ring should be kitted with the lens, not sold as an accessory. Images with 1.4 & 2X extenders appear softer than they should be at maximum aperture. I think my results with the 300 plus extenders (and film) more consistant. Having said that, advanges include ability to use conventional filters (77mm polarizer) and great savings in weight, bulk, and cost for essentially the same field of view. ...more info
- 200mm 2.8L prime - another combo possibility...
This is my second piece of L series glass. I also own the 17-40mm f/4L and about 6 other lenses. The body I'm using this on is primarily a Canon EOS 20d, with a 10d for a backup, both have 1.6x crop factors, which multiplies the focal length by 1.6x.
I was researching the differences between the 70-200 f/4L and the 70-200 2.8L and how soon I could afford one or the other and somehow I ran across this 200mm prime. Noone ever seems to talk about it and I hadn't seen it around the sites I was reviewing (probably because the 200mm 1.8L gets all the attention), but I found it one day and immediately bought it. It's a reasonable compromise between the two lenses mentioned so I decided not to wait any longer for more L glass. It performs as you should expect from L series lenses, I have no complaints about it and am well satisfied with it. I do find myself missing a zoom range and so there are still decisions to make about a future upgrade path. I've stopped using my non-L zooms altogether now as I get a very low percentage of sharp, rich, realistic looking shots compared to the L glass or my 50mm 2.5 compact macro lens.
With this lens I have a combination possiblity that I've never heard discussed... I could keep this lens and get a 70-200mm f/4 IS to pair with it. This would mean that I would have one lens with IS for hand held stability, the other for sports action in low light. The weight of both lens is about the same as the 2.8L zoom, but when handholding for long periods either lens would be light by itself. I could leave one lens home when backpacking if I wanted to or be no worse off (weight-wise) bringing both than if I brought the 2.8L zoom. Size-wise the 2 lens pack better in my kit than the one large lens would. As luck would have it, they both can use the less expensive 200mm prime's tripod ring (though neither lens comes with one - Booooo!!! Hissssss!!!).
When it comes to long tele shots with an extender I still am starting with a wide enough aperature with the 2.8 prime that the 2x is usable with Autofocus. Also, I'm starting with a prime lens so the final photo would be theoretically sharper than the 70-200 2.8L zoom. The 70-200mm f/4 IS zoom however, scores as high or higher as primes in it's range (according to Photozone) unlike most zooms, better than the f/4 non-IS or either of the 2.8 zooms according to their objective testing.
What I would give up in this combination is the ability to do it all in one lens so that means I may occasionally miss a shot when swapping lenses. Also, I give up the wide aperature if I decide I want 2.8 in the rest of the zoom range and didn't want to bump up the ISO dramatically in the f/4L IS zoom. On the other hand, if a lens has to go in for service there is redundancy in the system and I still have something to use (or share with a friend on the trip who splits the weight).
Because the resale value on L glass is pretty good, if I prefer a different upgrade path I can start over without much financial loss. Oh... and I can buy both the 70-200 f/4L IS and this lens at about the same price as the 70-200 2.8L IS lens alone, but pay the price in stages as I go rather than waiting a while to get the single lens.
Before I make that upgrade decision though, I think I'm going to rent some of the possible choices to figure out if I'd be happy with this upgrade path. It has some pros for me, considering most of the time I'd be backpacking with it for quite a few miles and at least I have an option to leave some weight behind if I would want. I really like the 200mm 2.8L as it is, and as you can see it has interesting possibilites for it's place in your kit. I wonder too, if anyone else has gone this route and what you think of it... I haven't bought that next lens yet and would be interested in hearing about others who may have already considered this. ...more info
- A wonderful lens!
I wanted a f/2.8 lens with 200mm within its range for my trip to Kenya, and decided to go with this lens due to its lower price compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8. While the 70-200mm would have been more versatile when capturing animals on a safari (I got quite a few head shots of elephants and giraffes), the 200mm certainly produced some excellent shots on my digital rebel. It is extremely sharp, and the colours look very natural. Autofocus is fast and accurate, and when manual focus is required (almost never), the focus ring turns evenly with just the right amount of resistance. For a tele lens of such a high standard, it is fairly compact and relatively low priced. I have also used it with a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter, and image quality suffers very little (if any) from that....more info
I bought this lens specifically for astrophotography to replace the 50mm, f/1.8 lens that shipped with my Rebel XT (EOS 350D) camera. The 50mm lens had to be stopped to f/2.8 to get decent star images, and then the edges were badly distorted (coma). The 200 mm lens is sharp to the edges at f/2.8. It easily captures stars to 14th magnitude at my sea level location with 30 second exposures. I have little experience with camera lens prices, and was surprised at the cost (a fairly good, small telescope can be had for that price), but I didn't have room for even a small telescope, and am very satisfied with this lens....more info