Canon 200mm f2.8 L Prime

[Thmaga]

Looking at picking up a telephoto, I have limited strength in my hands and can just about manage a 6D+24-105 so weight is an issue.

Came across the 200mm F2.8 prime, Ive noticed there is a Mark I and Mark II version out there - does anyone have any experience with either. A quick look around online seems to give the impression the MK II is quite sharp.

The MK II seems to be quite a bargain new, I'm not adverse to picking one up used especially if the MK I version is worth it.

 

[ukaskew]

It's a fantastic lens, super sharp, up there with the best of the L primes such as the 135mm f2 in my opinion. I had version II, the AF was silent and instant and I had absolutely no complaints with image quality.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=43894860@N00&q=Canon 200mm 2.8

As you have limited strength I can't think of anything better in terms of a long-ish fast focal length that is still relatively compact.

 

[Thmaga]

It's a fantastic lens, super sharp, up there with the best of the L primes such as the 135mm f2 in my opinion. I had version II, the AF was silent and instant and I had absolutely no complaints with image quality.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=43894860@N00&q=Canon 200mm 2.8

As you have limited strength I can't think of anything better in terms of a long-ish fast focal length that is still relatively compact.

Thanks - I've just been having a browse through flickr...certainly looks good!

 

[Phil V]

IIRC the mk1 had a built in lens hood?

Anyway I had the mk II and it was great, I sold it for the zoom though.

 

[Canon Bob]

Despite having a 200/2, I keep a 200/2.8 (MkII) as a more portable option. Excellent value for money and unlikely to disappoint you.

Bob

 

[magicolor1]

I've had a MkI for around 20 years now, and it's still going strong. Superb lens as others have said, and definitely in the same league as the 135 f2 (which I also own). The only differences between the MkI and MkII is the lens hood which is built in on the MkI (and slightly too short!), and add-on for the MkII. It's lighter than the 135 f2 and balances very nicely with a good size focussing grip, so ought to suit you well.

 

[modchild]

Does anyone know if the 200 f2.8 MkII takes the Canon converters. That might be a good, fairly light, way to get a 400 reach at a decent price. As long as the optics would rival, thereabouts, the 400 f5.6 and a 300 f4.

Forget the question about whether it'll fit, I've just found a list of all the compatible lenses and the 200 f2.8L II is on the list. Just need to know about the optical performance. I have enough coverage for this length at the minute, but I've recently started suffering from arthritis in my shoulders so I'm thinking more towards the future.

 

[Canon Bob]

It can take the 1.4x quite well Stuart but the 2x will not make it into anything comparable to the 400/5.6

Bob

 

[magicolor1]

Agreed. I've used both 1.4 and 2x converters on my MkI and the quality with the 2x isn't as good as the 400/5.6 and the AF is also much slower. The 1.4 is reasonable though.