Anyone have any comments on the Canon Ef 200mm F2 USM

Robin Usagani · Jul 22, 2011

Damn.. buy it! Buy the 24-105 too because you will make at least $100 if you dont want it lol

Dao · Jul 22, 2011

With the box, that's a good indicator that the lens is not stolen.

Ryan L · Jul 22, 2011

Schwetty...I would buy the 24-105, but I am a gear whore, and even if I dont use it (which I know I would), I would never get rid of it! My brain thinks everything is an investment, L lenses usually dont go down in value, but still I cant think of it like that. I would be broke!

DiskoJoe · Jul 22, 2011

I'd go snatch that lens up before that guy realizes he could get twice that on ebay. What a steal for a 100mm f2

Ryan L · Jul 22, 2011

Just got home...what a deal. Lens purchased locally in 2009, with receipt, and a 7 year transferrable Mack warranty. No scams here. The 24-105 comes with the same deal, and two Hoya HD filters! Thats almost another 300 right there...thinking of selling my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC and getting it as well.

johnh2005 · Jul 22, 2011

Damn nice find! There is hardly ever anything on my CL and when it is they want retail for it lol I am so jealous! Congratulations!

Ryan L · Jul 23, 2011

Ok...I have the "I want syndrome". Got the 100mm f2, now that guy will take 700.00 for the 24-105, but to justify it I would have to put my tamron 17-50 2.8 VC for sale.

I don't use the 17-50 very often on the wide end, and usually shoot almost at 50. But I would be giving up my 2.8 for a f4. I now have the 50mm 1.4, 100mm 2, 70-200 2.8 IS. Do you think the trade off would be a good one? I may lose the 17-24 range, but would gain 50-70mm. I shoot a lof of sports, both outside and inside. Some portrait work and hoping to shoot with more wedding photographers. So I am a little scared to lose a stop of light.

Thoughts?