Canon 200 f/2.8L Reviews

[brivard]

I am considering the Canon 200 f/2.8L as my next big lens purchase, and since it's a relative oldie, there aren't a million reviews out there for it. Is it worth the (relatively low for "L") price tag?

[ThomasPoeschmann]

Despite the heavy 2.0/1.8 versions there is nothing better. I had one in the past, it is very sharp wide open. Vignetting is present but can easily be corrected. You are able to use a tripod collar ring with this lens, it is not required but makes the handling easier.

Currently I use a 2.0/135 plus TK 1.4. This combo is pretty light. I do not miss anything in between 135 and 190 mm, and I do not miss anything above 190 mm.

You should ask yourself whether a prime works for your application. Maybe a 4.0/70-200 IS is one stop slower, but not much bigger and heavier and a lot more versatile. If you get a good copy it is still a very usable lens wide open.

[stever]

i think the 200 2.8 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses,  out of the box the focus was spot on with my copy and it's as sharp as the 100M.  better center sharpness than the 70-200 f4 IS and much better corner sharpness - it's reasonable sized, reasonable weight, and black.  also works better with 1.4x than the zoom lenses (although the lens is so sharp with negligible distortion that the barrel distortion and loss of corner sharpness with the extender is quite noticeable)

i don't find the need for the expensive collar - use an RRS L-place with tripod

exceptional IQ/$

yes, i like it

[stever]

come to think of it, i tested 2 copies when i bought mine and there was no real difference between them

[Chris Pollock]

I've too have found the 200mm F2.8 to be a great lens. I also own a 200mm F4 L IS, and can verify that the 200mm F2.8 is sharper, especially in the corners. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it based on optical quality.

If you want the best possible image quality, a good prime lens cannot be beaten. On the other hand, the 70-200 zoom has IS and is a lot more versatile, so it may be the better buy if money is limited.

[spotmeter]

I am considering the Canon 200 f/2.8L as my next big lens purchase, and since it's a relative oldie, there aren't a million reviews out there for it. Is it worth the (relatively low for "L") price tag?

The Canon 200 f2.8L is an excellent lens. I have had one for several years and the quality is superb.  I easily make 40 x 60 prints from this lens.

But Canon has been having a lot of quality control problems lately, so be sure to test the lens thoroughly once you have bought it. Also, make sure the seller will exchange it for another if you find a problem.

[klane]

Its tack sharp and has a good contrast to it. I highly recommend it. Much better that any of the 70-200 zooms.

[stever]

i agree that Canon has QC issues and i won't accept a lens without testing - but there are reports of issues with Zeiss lenses as well!

however, it's my experience that the quality issues (not surprisingly) correlate pretty well with the complexity of the lens - worst are IS zoom, next zooms and IS primes, most consistent L primes no IS.

i tested 2 200s and there really wasn't a significant difference -- this is a relatively low risk lens

[Anthony R]

I owned this lens for a short while but found it was too long for my purposes. It proved to be an excellent lens however my 135 f2 was a tad nicer for my work. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase it again if the need arose. Kills the 70-200 regardless of aperture.