Canon 200mm f2.8 II USM

[RichieTang]

Hello. I am deciding on whether to purchase the canon 200mm F2.8 II USM Prime lense. I was deciding between this or the canon 70-200 f4. I am a beginner photographer, and am looking to learn and practice different types of photography.

I was thinking of using this for a bit of landscape, portrait (candid), and animals. My next two years will be spent evenly between asian cities and rural areas/hiking/backpacking

I currently have a 50mm F1.8 and a 24-105 F4 IS and I am using a Canon Rebel T2i

Thank you for the suggestions/advice!

 

[JerryLove]

The 200mm f/2.8 L II USM should (I have no personal experience with the lens) be smaller, lighter, faster to focus, and give you slightly better pictures (as well as working with half the light).

The 70-200 f/4 L, which I do have, is a really excellent lens (though I've not gotten it to be excellent with a filter attached and so shoot without one). It is my current go-to lens for most shots. Despite the "slightly better" statement above, it delivers professional-quality pictures; and what it brings to the table is a zoom range. Seriously: the only think I regret is that I don't have IS.

I would take the 70-200 personally. 200 is a bit far to be shooting portraits, if only from a practical standpoint; and animals may not give you much opportunity to move to recompose. My prime lenses are 50mm and 100mm.

 

[Derrel]

I've shot a borrowed 70-200 f/4 L USM, the older, NON-IS version with the 67mm filter threads. It's a nicely-made lens, and it's a ZOOM. From what I've seen and read the newer, IS version is even nicer. I've held and played around with but have not shot the new IS version, but have seen a hundred or so files my buddy shot with his. The new lens is REALLY almost perfect in balance on his 50D and 7D bodies....it's just sweet. Grip, or no grip...the new 70-200 f/4 IS USM model balances basically like a dream on a small-body Canon. And its size is pretty skinny thru the entire barrel. If it were "me", I would MUCH rather have this brand new f/4 Image Stabilized zoom than a prime 200/2.8. Just soooo much more focal length flexibility to the zoom.

 

[Gavjenks]

I agree, the 70-200 f/4 IS is blatantly obviously better than either. But it might not be an option here, Derrel, since it costs hundreds of dollars more ($1,300) than either of the ones he listed ($700 and $800).
So I'm guessing 7--200 f/4 image stabilization is out of budget. And the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is less obviously better. Though I'd probably still suggest it for the versatility here while traveling, if nothing else, if it's between those two lenses.


However, there are OTHER options. For a budget of < $800, you can easily afford something like a 70-300 IS USM f/4-5.6. Almost as fast, same basic range, and image stabilization, and under budget. (save on your plane ticket!)
That's probably the one I suggest here given that price range and your needs. Not either of the ones in the OP.

 

[mckeonkent]

This lens is massive. My kids refer to it as the Hubble Telescope. Speed of focus, AMAZING! Clarity, AWESOME! The quality of the photos are amazing, very much like you would expect from a prime lens.

I use this lens on a crop body, even further extending its reach. I find that it is an excellent portrait lens (provided you can back up enough) as well as an excellent sports lens.
I put off buying this lens for years because of the cost. Boy, that was a dumb decision. I should have bit the bullet a long time ago. My image library would be much better. You will be asked to send pictures, emails, and get jobs immediately from this lens.

 

[table1349]

Richie Tang, I own a 200 mm f2.8 II and have owned the 70-200 f4. It's gone and I now have the 70-200 f2.8 II IS. Both that you are looking at are outstanding pieces of glass and both if used properly can provide outstanding results. Results that you will not get with consumer grade glass. Both have advantages and limitations. The 200 is exceedingly sharp. Nearly as sharp as the 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 plus it is faster glass. But it is a prime so no zoom. You are going to have to move.
The 70-200 f4 is sharp, light, and is a zoom lens as well as being well priced for L glass, however at f4 it is slower glass than the 200 f2.8. My suggestion is to think about the best fit for your needs and go that direction.

 

[bratkinson]

My suggestion is to think about the best fit for your needs and go that direction.

'Finding' the best fit for your needs is key. If you read enough threads in various forums, many will extol the benefits of owning all prime lenses. Others, the benefits of zooms. After buying a variety of prime lenses (the 200 f2.8L ii was one of them) as well as several L zooms, I found that zoom lenses were the best fit for my purposes. So I sold off the primes, except the 135 f2L.

To cover the 200mm range, I bought a 20 year old 80-200 f2.8L 'magic drainpipe' lens for less than half what the 70-200 f2.8L mark I was going for new. I'm in a continual state of awe at the results that lens gives me wide open at 200mm. It also fills my own mantra of overlapping zoom ranges, so I have a 24-105 and 16-35 as well to cover just about everything I shoot.

Bottom line, consider what your needs are. Like everyone else, they will likely evolve over time. But given your intents for travel and hiking/backpacking, weight of your gear should be carefully considered as well as focal lengths. As you have a crop sensor camera, you may want to consider EF-S zooms like a 55-250 for weight, size, and cost considerations. I had one when I had my 30D and later 60D, and found it surprisingly sharp and a good travel lens for longer focal lengths.