Dawid Loubser
Member
Hello,
Having the inclination to try something completely different, I have gradually been replacing my workhorse 28-300L with separate, smaller and mostly fixed-focal length lenses. The last gap that needed to be filled after selling it, was at the telephoto end. I was using it mostly in the 200mm range, and having both the 50L and the 100 Macro, neither of which any 70-200 zoom could ever touch, I opted to go for the (universally loved, and almost universally non-used) EF 200mm f/2.8L II.
I had just gotten rid of one big white lens, and was not about to replace it with another (70-200/2.8L) and for my type of shooting an f/4 lens won't cut it, otherwise the highly acclaimed 70-200/4L IS would do nicely.
I am merely a hobbyist, and could thus afford to make the "quirky" decision to let go of a technical marvel like the 28-300L and "replace" it with the simplest, cheapest L lens with no IS.
This is very old in the current EF range (only a minor update since 1991 regarding the lens hood). I find it very well built, with an outer barrel consisting mostly of metal, and in all respects very much like the 135L or the 16-35L. It is also surprisingly compact - it looks exactly like a 16-35L, with an added 4cm or so of length. It seems as if they barely managed to fit the large front element into this form factor! This lens is not built like the 28-300L (in my opinion, basically no lens is) but is, nevertheless, a joy to hold, and very balanced on my 1D Mk II N camera. The supplied hood is surprisingly large in relation to lens size - truly massive! Without it, it's a compact and discreet lens ideal for street photography (one of the reasons I let the big white lens go). With the hood, it looks like a much larger Nikon 300mm (because it's black). This lens is very flare-resistant in the first place, so I don't know why the "paranoia" with the huge hood!
I received this lens earlier this week, and since I am presenting a training course to a very full class, I have not had time to take any decent photographs apart from quick test shots. But from what I see, I draw the conclusion that published MTF charts really do not tell the full story. Sure, the lens has a great MTF, but to my eye, it equals, or beats, the performance of the 100mm Macro wide open.
It is extremely... no, stupendously sharp, and in the toughest circumstances, such as a small white object in bright sunlight, shot wide open, I have not seen a stitch of chromatic aberration. Only now do I realise how much better the prime is than the 70-200/2.8L wide open, and no matter how much I stopped the 28-300L down, it couldn't touch this lens' performance at f/2.8 - in any respect.
So... I started this thread to hopefully post more informative images etc later on, but I wanted to share my initial impressions. 200mm is such an unpopular focal length for fixed lenses, and I had hoped that I did not make a mistake in going for this lens.
Perhaps only time will tell, but so far, the optics have been worth it! I am going to acquire a 1.4x extender for it soon, getting me back to 300mm (though, to be honest, after about 200mm, you usually need all the mm you can get, and my 800mm does just fine there
. But having a compact 300mm/4 handy will have its virtues.
I do miss Image Stabilisation in low light though! But so far, it seems a small price to pay. If I were a working pro, of course I'd also have a 70-200, because it certainly will allow you to frame the shot quicker. But for ultimate quality, not to mention a nice lens to walk around with, the 200/2.8L II is great, and I would recommend it to anybody whose style allows them to invest a bit more time in their shots. It is superb.
But, alas, this is all based on a bit of messing around with it. I will update this thread with my relevant experiences. Does anybody else here use this lens? This is like the mini-300/2.8L everybody is looking for. I will probably always shoot this lens wide open!
Having the inclination to try something completely different, I have gradually been replacing my workhorse 28-300L with separate, smaller and mostly fixed-focal length lenses. The last gap that needed to be filled after selling it, was at the telephoto end. I was using it mostly in the 200mm range, and having both the 50L and the 100 Macro, neither of which any 70-200 zoom could ever touch, I opted to go for the (universally loved, and almost universally non-used) EF 200mm f/2.8L II.
I had just gotten rid of one big white lens, and was not about to replace it with another (70-200/2.8L) and for my type of shooting an f/4 lens won't cut it, otherwise the highly acclaimed 70-200/4L IS would do nicely.
I am merely a hobbyist, and could thus afford to make the "quirky" decision to let go of a technical marvel like the 28-300L and "replace" it with the simplest, cheapest L lens with no IS.
This is very old in the current EF range (only a minor update since 1991 regarding the lens hood). I find it very well built, with an outer barrel consisting mostly of metal, and in all respects very much like the 135L or the 16-35L. It is also surprisingly compact - it looks exactly like a 16-35L, with an added 4cm or so of length. It seems as if they barely managed to fit the large front element into this form factor! This lens is not built like the 28-300L (in my opinion, basically no lens is) but is, nevertheless, a joy to hold, and very balanced on my 1D Mk II N camera. The supplied hood is surprisingly large in relation to lens size - truly massive! Without it, it's a compact and discreet lens ideal for street photography (one of the reasons I let the big white lens go). With the hood, it looks like a much larger Nikon 300mm (because it's black). This lens is very flare-resistant in the first place, so I don't know why the "paranoia" with the huge hood!
I received this lens earlier this week, and since I am presenting a training course to a very full class, I have not had time to take any decent photographs apart from quick test shots. But from what I see, I draw the conclusion that published MTF charts really do not tell the full story. Sure, the lens has a great MTF, but to my eye, it equals, or beats, the performance of the 100mm Macro wide open.
It is extremely... no, stupendously sharp, and in the toughest circumstances, such as a small white object in bright sunlight, shot wide open, I have not seen a stitch of chromatic aberration. Only now do I realise how much better the prime is than the 70-200/2.8L wide open, and no matter how much I stopped the 28-300L down, it couldn't touch this lens' performance at f/2.8 - in any respect.
So... I started this thread to hopefully post more informative images etc later on, but I wanted to share my initial impressions. 200mm is such an unpopular focal length for fixed lenses, and I had hoped that I did not make a mistake in going for this lens.
Perhaps only time will tell, but so far, the optics have been worth it! I am going to acquire a 1.4x extender for it soon, getting me back to 300mm (though, to be honest, after about 200mm, you usually need all the mm you can get, and my 800mm does just fine there
. But having a compact 300mm/4 handy will have its virtues.I do miss Image Stabilisation in low light though! But so far, it seems a small price to pay. If I were a working pro, of course I'd also have a 70-200, because it certainly will allow you to frame the shot quicker. But for ultimate quality, not to mention a nice lens to walk around with, the 200/2.8L II is great, and I would recommend it to anybody whose style allows them to invest a bit more time in their shots. It is superb.
But, alas, this is all based on a bit of messing around with it. I will update this thread with my relevant experiences. Does anybody else here use this lens? This is like the mini-300/2.8L everybody is looking for. I will probably always shoot this lens wide open!
