|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on March 21, 2021 Pros: Affordable cost, 200 mm actual not as in the 70 -200 2.8, light, discreet, good sharpness, good boket. Cons: it is not easy to use a fixed 200 mm for those who are used to zooming, I often use fixeds, it is not tropicalized, it is not stabilized. Opinion: If you find a 70-200 2.8 and showy too heavy, then it is the optics for you, if instead you do not have these limits with a hawthorn, you do not take it, I prefer it to zoom but it is a matter of tastes, I read that reviews of serious online sites do not recommend it, because it is less sharp than white is not stabilized and is not a more comfortable zoom. Compared to the hawthorn I say this, it weighs and costs half is not obvious, the sharpness for portraits is enough and advances, vignette less, and other defects are minimized. In the end with the hawthorn you use at the focals 135 200mm (which are then not 200mm actual) so just see which of the two you prefer and take either this or the 135. |
  | sent on September 26, 2020 Pros: Materials, handling, sharpness and color rendering. Cons: But what "against"? Opinion: I've wanted this lens for years. After deciding to abandon the zooms (except the practical 24-70 L F4, which will remain in the kit for a long time), I found what I call "the occasion": purchased used at RCE in Padua, practically new, I tested it for some shots on the 5D Mk. III : in post production I said "what is it for ?". Files that are exciting in terms of color rendering and sharpness. The 135mm, the Lord of the Red ring, has a very good competitor. Soon I will use it for portraits, where I am convinced will not disappoint me. Vote 10 full. |
 | sent on April 25, 2020 Pros: everything: great canvas, with the 90D equals a 320mm 2.8, light, handy, very fast MAF. Cons: Maybe the slightest distance of MAF, but I took it to photograph from afar, up close I have the 100 2.8 IS USM Macro. Opinion: I bought it used at 450 euros, it came perfect and I started using it with the 60D. I also took the TC 2x Canon II version and it becomes a good 400 the maximum I had with the 90D, instant MAF, excellent blur, colors that do not require post production. I come from 30 years of analogue in which you should not miss the exposure and then even now with digital if I'm careful as before I have no need for post production except for the crop that the 90D allows well (see photos of frogs, crop to 0.3-0,4). It's like having a 400 2.8 on full frame of 20 Mpx. With its brightness it does not need thousands of ISOs and therefore I do not need amazing ISOs, those of the Canon 60D, 6D and 90D are also too many. I rarely use 1600. Great purchase that I would do with my eyes closed. Very recommended. |
 | sent on May 24, 2019 Pros: Large maximum opening; Sharpness Blurred Strength Excellent correction of aberrations; Low dispersion lenses; Lightweight and unwieldy to be an F/2.8; Bright colors. Cons: Lack of tropicalization; Lack of stabilizer. Opinion: I own this lens from 2012. Bought for astrophotography, so I don't feel the need for the stabilizer. However I also use it for other photographic genres such as landscape and nature. For the landscape I use mounted on the tripod, so I do not need the stabilizer (and if he had I should deactivate it); Useful for isolating a detail. For nature I use it at the minimum distance (adjust the selector) on flowers and other details, as it will result in excellent sharpness and an exciting bokeh. The colors are brilliant. In Astronomy You can consider yourself as a small astrographer. It provides excellent photographs of stellar fields, open clusters, large nebulae. Useful in the photography of conjunctions and eclipses when you also include the landscape. The low dispersion lenses guarantee a very good chromatic aberration correction and very punctiform stars. You feel the lack of tropicalization! Overall a very good goal. Delighted with the choice I made. |
  | sent on April 15, 2019 Pros: Blurred, sharpened species from f4, construction, size and weight contained Cons: some copies are soft in TA Opinion: I take it from Filiberto's review, with which I agree perfectly, I have this lens for a few days and I have to say that I like it. In fact in a kit where there is also a 135 I do not see it, it is a kind of 135L but longer and less sharp at TA that in this case, also given the greater focal length is f2.8 . Excellent to isolate the subject from the surrounding environment which, with wide openings, is completely erased. A very dated lens whose design dates back to 1996 but is appreciated. Today in the age of the super correct there would be no place but I appreciate just that vaguely vintage air that returns especially in the bn. Difficult a fixed 200mm not stabilized, you always shoot at high iso and, if you are around without support, lacks the versatility of a stabilized zoom but is more manageable this fixed and also weighs much less than an f2.8 zoom. Update: I had, over time, 3 copies and I stopped with this latest production 2015 which is by far the best, sharp even at f2.8, difficult to distinguish it from a 135L , the difference between new and used on this lens is small and I would recommend without dubb I'll take it new or cmq recent. If you love lenses with character and need a long focal without gluing a fifth this lens could do for you but if you are looking for a supercorrect and stabilized lens better to turn elsewhere. Considering only this last copy my grade is a full 10. |
 | sent on August 13, 2017 Pros: Enchanting sharp blur, metal and glass metals Cons: I honestly did not find it, if I had to find one tropicalization, but all the canonical optics of that time were devoid of it. Opinion: I possessed this optic a few years ago when I used canon, I made it curious to use it on Sony A7rii with metabones V and sigma mc-11, I have to say that on the sensor sony does a lot but very but very good, it seems made specifically for Mirrorless. a 200mm 2.8 765 gram weighs well. how fast i do not know if and merabout of metabones but fast i afs afc afc and also afc video, and then on sony a stabilized 200mm not a bit. Satisfied . |
user34708  | sent on May 21, 2017 Pros: Beautiful optics, tonal rendering, sharpness even at full aperture, fairly compact, not heavy, blurry pleasing, great contrast, MAF fast Cons: I did not find it. Opinion: I used it on APS-C, Canon D70. I knew well the 200mm f2.8 FD and this goal is its continuation. Optically it's unobtrusive, magnificent, balanced, well-finished, fast autofocus construction. The color rendering is noticeable and in combination with the contrast gives the best files. In his hand he does well and does not feel the absence of the stabilizer, well balanced and proportionate. Well-made, efficient and comfortable hood for positioning in reverse. I put it on sale and I will miss it. |
user39791 | sent on February 11, 2016 Pros: Blur, sharpen species f4, construction, size and weight. Cons: At f2.8 it is crisp but not crystal clear, lack of stabilization and weather sealing. Opinion: Blurred at the top, crisp but not crystal clear to f2.8 (does not hold quite the comparison with the 70 200 2,8II). At 200 you start to feel the lack of the stabilizer, which is not perceived with 135 2. For me it was a hit and run in the sense that I got (used) and resold after ten days, the reason: a 200 fixed it is too binding. I would recommend the 135 2 (sharper, more versatile) or 70 200 4IS (for maximum versatility and quality and at the same time to stay on similar weights and dimensions), but if the problem is not fixed 200 l 'optics is very good. |
 | sent on November 09, 2015 Pros: Image Quality, Boken, construction, price, color rendering, lens hood and enclosure supplied Cons: Not relevant Opinion: It's an exceptional goal, which I recommend to everyone. To use for photos of sports all right, with quick times he's worthily. The Af is fast enough and also hooks up quickly. Excellent for laid portraits to which this lens is not overly sharp looks dedicated. If you like the focal length of 200mm or with the zoom 70-200 taken more or less always at maximum extension, ensures quality photos with a weight more than halved. |
 | sent on September 14, 2015 Pros: Image quality similar to 70-200 f / 2.8 L IS II Cons: Lack of versatility and IS Opinion: I have tried this for an afternoon, about a hundred shots, so I can not say I have deepened my knowledge, but I can say that it will be my next purchase. The immediate impression is exactly the same as it did to me , in its time, the 70-200 2.8 II: you are not supposed to, amazing image quality, crazy clarity even in full opening, blurred by dream. A fairy tale also as a street-portrait lens, the first planes are 5-6 meters, thus avoiding "letting" the lens into the subject and stealing beautiful portraits. I see that it is a fixed, but not stabilized , it is not easy to use or versatile as the "white", but it costs a third, which becomes a quarter or a fifth if you buy used. For those who like me use zoom only in special circumstances and almost always at the maximum focal length , it is astonishing. rn |
 | sent on June 14, 2015 Pros: Cost dimensions weight quality ' Cons: With regard to cost, no. In absolute terms, the 'IS would have been useful Opinion: I've had for two years a 70-200 IS II. This has the same quality but fuzzy undoubtedly better. I had already had in the past and when I made the transition from this to the zoom II was hurt because of the inferior quality of the fuzzy 70-200 It is also smaller and lighter. I sold 70-200 II and taking this. 200 2.8 L II can carry almost always with me, while zooming stayed home. I'm glad of the passage and I were also fine pocket money :-) |
 | sent on February 25, 2015 Pros: Excellent quality 'optics, fast AF, excellent construction, Limiter MF button, rendering colors faithful and Bokeh EXCEPTIONAL Cons: Nothing defects Opinion: I needed a lens from a portrait and medium telephoto for sports photos more 'bright, having had the great satisfaction the 70-200L-f.4 IS USM I realized that I used very much the focal length 200 and many times with MT 1 / 4, having tried the Bianchino f.2.8 for over 7 hours, I realized that it was quite heavy compared to my F.4 and I decided to buy the 200f.2.8 Much lighter to need one more stop. And 'multipliable with both 1/4 that with 2X and having both APSC that the FF I match with 85-f.1.8 and I'm happy. For Portraits is for me 'EXCELLENT because' I do not like to get too close to the subject and the focal length 85-f.1.8 the use with the 70D when I bisogno.Ho also used the 200 with MT Kenko that both Canon and I only noticed a small slowdown of 'AF only with the 2X, but has a negligible Bokeh beautiful for my taste photograph, lacks only IS mè but not a limit to this perspective, one thing that I have not yet learned to exploit is the imitator AF that sometimes I forget to move, it is very useful for speedà AF but if you miss as sometimes happens to mè takes longer in the MF and you can make mistakes some shots, not a fault but an advantage if you learn to use it correttamente.Per me the 200mm f / 2.8 L II USM deserves nice 10 both for quality and for the price. |
 | sent on December 07, 2014 Pros: optical quality, construction Cons: versatility Opinion: It 'a species in danger of extinction. Undeservedly, in part. I refer to the telephoto fixed not exasperated. Typically, a 200 mm. Of course, not being able to zoom in on occasion are lost, irretrievably. But the advantages are: relative lightness and quality. And 'the case of this goal. Lightweight, given the focal and the relative aperture. And the quality is there throughout. Good sharpness even at full aperture, and the star from 'F4.5 up. Construction cured and convincing color rendering complete the picture. For those who do not intend to go down to some compomesso with the quality but does not have an unlimited budget. |
 | sent on October 19, 2014 Pros: Optical Quality, fast AF, f / 2.8, light weight, dimensions, construction, can be multiplied, pleasant blur thanks to 8-blade circular diaphragm, quality / price unbeatable, is not black and stands out too much. Cons: I find no flaws. The lack of IS is not, but it is among the specifications (if you choose it you know). Even the lack of versatility is not, because those who need it do not buy a disk. Opinion: I wanted a tele portrait lens, which if necessary could be multiplied to give me mm and the few times I had bisogno.rnMi I was initially informed about the white zoom canon, but I was in difficulty in the selection: each had a few against me that made him discard . The 70-200 f2 / 8 L weighed too much and it was huge, although I liked the quality molto.rnLe versions of f / 4, although this time on weights and dimensions were good, were not suited to portraits for the little aperture. I also evaluated the 70-300 mm for more if necessary, but an even more f chiusa.rnrnPoi the stroke of genius, I realized that I would have used 99% to 200mm (already having an ef 100 f / 2 ) so I am informed on fixed and I discovered this wonder: the canon ef 200 f / 2.8 L ii.rnrnQualità unsurpassed optics, a cream out of focus and especially f / 2.8 with weights and a compact device. They seemed to have joined the quality of the harrier to the weight of bianchino, too good to be true! RNA that point I said, such a view will cost ifnz'altro a bang, perhaps more than the harrier! But I was wrong !! rnSono able to catch him again, with 2 years warranty ita + 2 more at the cs Milan (for a tot of 4 years) only 650 € including shipping !!!! rnrnInoltre with the money saved I took a bell'extender canon x2 to get a fabulous 400 f / 5,6 if necessary! rnAltro that 70-300 L :) ... and tell you that I have done so many tests and multiplied the AF is still responding to my grande.rnOra is new with date code 2014 .. I do not know if the newer ones have improved the ' use with extender, I can safely say that is a splinter and not to the merits of the 6d, because I have not encountered any problems even doing tests on the old 1000d.rnrnSe like me looking for a perspective light, small, black (which does not result in too 'eye), with f / 2.8, multipliable, great quality and an affordable price do not worry you do not ask the impossible! Exists and is called "canon ef 200 f / 2.8 L ii." rnL'avessi only discovered before :) |
 | sent on August 14, 2014 Pros: Building, colors, Af, bokeh, weight, price. Cons: No weather sealing and stabilization. Opinion: And 'the elder brother, at least as focal length, although the 135L is slightly less sharp at full aperture with respect to the brother. The building is a classic from the L series and, although it lacks the weather sealing, combining lightness with strength and reliability. The colors that transmits the sensor are very nice and I find them perfect in portraiture. L 'autofocus is responsive, especially with the limiter on, and does not regret modules much more recent. The blur is absolutely comparable to that of 135L and I challenge anyone to find differences in the same image taken with these two objectives. Considering the price if, like me, you usually use the zoom almost always at the two extreme focal lengths, can be a viable alternative to the 70-200 II (maybe associating a 85mm 1.8), spending about the metà.rnNon will be the maximum ductility but , for those who like landlines, it is a lens to be supplied. |
user16612 | sent on June 20, 2014 Pros: Optical quality, construction, lightness, discretion, maximum opening, blurry, no aberrations, full-aperture sharpness, autofocus speed. Cons: Not versatile, but only in case of impulsive purchase. In relation to my needs, no one else. Opinion: Perfect optics for portraiture, especially for close-ups and bust media. RnFin is too sharp to open whenever the first planes are made.rnA whole figure, having enough space, produces a very effective cleavage. Its strengths: chromatic rendering (I almost never feel the need to intervene on color balance) And blurry, remembering the brushstrokes.rnrn |
 | sent on June 14, 2014 Pros: quality 'excellent optics, autofocus fast, light as tele 2.8 on aps-c' a 320mm f2.8. Cons: on aps-c feels the lack of stabilizer, maybe 2.8 is not 'sharp as the last 70-200 2.8 is II. Opinion: I purchased this light for indoor sports photos and I would say that 'the ideal goal, if you want lightness, brightness', fast autofocus and quality' optic without compromise. They say that 2.8 is not 'the top as the 70-200 2.8 is II, but in any case we are talking of a very high level and that will not disappoint anyone. Closed to 5.6 and 'almost embarrassing detail that returns throughout the frame. I think that used on the 500 euro, it can not be better to have. |
 | sent on May 01, 2014 Pros: Great focus, incisive, lightweight, fast AF, excellent construction. Price on the used market very favorable. Cons: Missing the stabilizer, but honestly I've never felt the need. In my opinion does not bear well the extender. Opinion: Optics uncommon, but really good. Value for money really extraordinary is used around 500-600 Euros and worth much, much more. Very sharp and nice fuzzy, though not reaching the levels of 135 L (which I have now). RnL'ho used with great satisfaction for close-ups in event photography: joined to a 17-40 or a 24-70 allows cover, with great quality, any need in these contexts. |
 | sent on February 17, 2014 Pros: Sharpest, sfuocato.solido as a rock Cons: I can not find Opinion: E 'for more than a year that I use this lens with great satisfaction. To the first floor is the increased usage. But I confess that I use both in the theater with a single foot and some landscapes in the mountains where they often need a long lens. I do not understand sometimes why. Certain inflated prices, some will have the stabilizer, but it seems a bit 'too. I use it always with the 5 de confess that the first few times I did not believe in its image quality. I highly recommend it |
 | sent on December 30, 2013 Pros: Blurred, color, engraving, af fast, professional construction. Cons: From the optical point of view nothing. Missing stabilization but it is not a defect. Opinion: It 'a 135L only longer and slightly less bright. Would be sufficient to say that. As the comment must have a minimum length of 350 characters or else you can not publish then continuous. The stabilizer would have been useful in critical situations to light, but for the money with which you bring home this lens is not a deficiency. In critical condition can be remedied by holding the lens from the lens hood to reduce flicker, and in more difficult cases, tripod. |
 | sent on November 13, 2013 Pros: Optical quality, portability, and construction. Quality / price ratio. Cons: Nothing relevant. Opinion: I have this view from about 6 months and I am extremely satisfied, on 5d MkII makes beautifully colors and space, with excellent sharpness and one worthy of focus lenses more blasonate.rnLa building is L series, so perfect and strong. Overall, it is very compact and discreet at all times, in my opinion one of the best portrait lenses on FF.rnIl value for money is among the most favorable of the catalog Canon, sin is a little slow diffusa.rn |
 | sent on July 02, 2013 Pros: Image quality of the highest level, portability interesting when compared with others in the same focal length set of Canon lenses and more. Typical construction quality L-series Cons: It is dated perspective, thus lack stabilizer and polarization. A fixed 200 certainly does not shine for its versatility. Opinion: Ultimately, this view is wonderful but you have to know exactly what you are bringing home. A camera with excellent management of the ISO would be recommended, because at 2.8 with exposure to 1/200 or 1/250 to be safe due to the lack of IS, it could happen to needing the occasional ISO 800-1000. However, nothing that any FF and also the best APS-C can not reggere.rnrnQuindi if the lack of versatility and does not disturb the reasoned approach is not a problem, this lens is a gem from the extraordinary optical quality and make happy any photographer. Guaranteed. |
 | sent on October 27, 2012 Pros: A great lens from the excellent sharpness and bokeh. Obviously less versatile so noble 70-200 2.8 but it, on its focal length, is even better. Cons: I've never encountered. Opinion: I believe that when you want to point to advertise on a lens rather than another, manufacturers are teachers. The fact is that I do not understand why this lens has always been considered "secondary". In my opinion one of the best zoom lenses first and best that there is available. Highly recommended! |
 | sent on October 25, 2011 Pros: Price, weight, quality L series Cons: Is not tropicalized Opinion: For a very affordable price you bring home a 200mm L series I think it is a fairy tale. Its strengths are the portraits that because you have to take enough away from the subject, leaving very spontaneous and with a phenomenal bokeh. Would highly recommend to anyone looking for a high quality fixed. Too bad for the tropicalization that, if there were, it would be a plus. Give it a good 10 - because perfection does not exist. And if there was, we'd never figure it out, given the ns. imperfection. |
user4264 | sent on October 08, 2011 Pros: Resolution, color, contrast, blur, price, size and weight. Cons: Lack of tropicalization and rounded diaphragm. Opinion: Perhaps the most underrated of all the L Canon catalog. For a relatively low cost you will come home with a view amazing. Performance similar to the 70 200 2.8 isII, but with a blurred even more beautiful to 2.8 (at the level of 135 2) and a stunning contrast and 2.8. Weight and dimensions are ideal for use freehand. Vignetting and CA perfectly correct. Perfect optics? If perfection does not exist here because we get a lot for the "praise" missing tropicalization and rounded diaphragm. So: a nice 10 (without praise ........) |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
