This prime lens is absolutely fantastic. It's fast to focus and quite versatile. The bokeh is stunning.



I tried it with an extension tube this morning and it was even more spectacular. The minimum focusing distance was much shorter with no degradation of image quality.



You won't go wrong if you choose this lens.

This lens is simply fantastic. We are amateur photographers and started building our kit a few years ago - this is our first "professional" lens and we are amazed with the results it produces.

It is fairly heavy but no need for a tripod.

This is my second piece of L series glass. I also own the 17-40mm f/4L and about 6 other lenses. The body I'm using this on is primarily a Canon EOS 20d, with a 10d for a backup, both have 1.6x crop factors, which multiplies the focal length by 1.6x.

I was researching the differences between the 70-200 f/4L and the 70-200 2.8L and how soon I could afford one or the other and somehow I ran across this 200mm prime. Noone ever seems to talk about it and I hadn't seen it around the sites I was reviewing (probably because the 200mm 1.8L gets all the attention), but I found it one day and immediately bought it. It's a reasonable compromise between the two lenses mentioned so I decided not to wait any longer for more L glass. It performs as you should expect from L series lenses, I have no complaints about it and am well satisfied with it. I do find myself missing a zoom range and so there are still decisions to make about a future upgrade path. I've stopped using my non-L zooms altogether now as I get a very low percentage of sharp, rich, realistic looking shots compared to the L glass or my 50mm 2.5 compact macro lens.

With this lens I have a combination possiblity that I've never heard discussed... I could keep this lens and get a 70-200mm f/4 IS to pair with it. This would mean that I would have one lens with IS for hand held stability, the other without for freezing sports action in low light. The weight of both lens is about the same as the 2.8L zoom, but when handholding for long periods either lens would be light by itself. I could leave one lens home when backpacking if I wanted to or be no worse off bringing both than if I brought the 2.8L zoom weightwise. Sizewise the 2 lens pack better in my kit than the one large lens would. As luck would have it, they both can use the less expensive 200mm prime's tripod ring (though neither lens comes with one - Booooo!!! Hissssss!!!).

When it comes to long tele shots with an extender I still am starting with a wide enough aperature with the 2.8 prime that the 2x is usable with Autofocus. Also, I'm starting with a prime lens so the final photo would be theoretically sharper than the 70-200 2.8L zoom. The 70-200mm f/4 IS zoom however, scores as high or higher as primes in it's range (according to Photozone) unlike most zooms, better than the f/4 non-IS or either of the 2.8 zooms according to their objective testing.

What I would give up in this combination is the ability to do it all in one lens so that means I may occasionally miss a shot when swapping lenses. Also, I give up the wide aperature if I decide I want 2.8 in the rest of the zoom range and didn't want to bump up the ISO dramatically in the f/4L IS zoom. On the other hand, if a lens has to go in for service there is redundancy in the system and I still have something to use (or share with a friend on the trip who splits the weight).

Because the resale value on L glass is pretty good, if I prefer a different upgrade path I can start over without much financial loss. Oh... and I can buy both the 70-200 f/4L IS and this lens at about the same price as the 70-200 2.8L IS lens alone, but pay the price in stages as I go rather than waiting a while to get the single lens. The one thing about the IS lens is that they have a reputation for being problematic at timing the peak of action in action shots. I still retain action timing/stopping with the 200 2.8L prime (at 200mm only), without having to own the 700-200 2.8 and the IS version together for either situation. So far, I have no knowledge of whether or not turning off the IS is a solution for this. I've never heard it mentioned in the context of the discussion though, so my first guess is that it doesn't help.

Before I make that upgrade decision though, I think I'm going to rent some of the possible choices to figure out if I'd be happy with this upgrade path. It has some pros for me, considering most of the time I'd be backpacking with it for quite a few miles and at least I have an option to leave some weight behind if I would want. I really like the 200mm 2.8L as it is, and as you can see it has interesting possibilites for it's place in your kit. I wonder too, if anyone else has gone this route and what you think of it... I haven't bought that next lens yet and would be interested in hearing about others who may have already considered this.

I wanted a f/2.8 lens with 200mm within its range for my trip to Kenya, and decided to go with this lens due to its lower price compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8. While the 70-200mm would have been more versatile when capturing animals on a safari (I got quite a few head shots of elephants and giraffes), the 200mm certainly produced some excellent shots on my digital rebel. It is extremely sharp, and the colours look very natural. Autofocus is fast and accurate, and when manual focus is required (almost never), the focus ring turns evenly with just the right amount of resistance. For a tele lens of such a high standard, it is fairly compact and relatively low priced. I have also used it with a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter, and image quality suffers very little (if any) from that.

I sold my Nikon stuff for Canon, I was using the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which was very nice. When I moved to canon I was going to get the Sigma lens again (shooting soccer) I wasn't having any luck finding a used one reasonably priced. I researched the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and decided to try it. I couldn't be happier. The AF is faster and more accurate. It is very easily hand held(I usually put the Sigma on a monopod) I love this lens.

This lens was purchased for use with the XTI. For me this replaced a 300mm F2.8 FD on an F1. The detachable lens shade is frail and bulky and therefore of little use to me (the discontinued Type I apparently had a built in hood). The tripod ring should be kitted with the lens, not sold as an accessory. Images with 1.4 & 2X extenders appear softer than they should be at maximum aperture. I think my results with the 300 plus extenders (and film) more consistant. Having said that, advanges include ability to use conventional filters (77mm polarizer) and great savings in weight, bulk, and cost for essentially the same field of view.

I bought this lens specifically for astrophotography to replace the 50mm, f/1.8 lens that shipped with my Rebel XT (EOS 350D) camera. The 50mm lens had to be stopped to f/2.8 to get decent star images, and then the edges were badly distorted (coma). The 200 mm lens is sharp to the edges at f/2.8. It easily captures stars to 14th magnitude at my sea level location with 30 second exposures. I have little experience with camera lens prices, and was surprised at the cost (a fairly good, small telescope can be had for that price), but I didn't have room for even a small telescope, and am very satisfied with this lens.

I have been totally amazed at the quality of the pictures I have taken with this lens and my Canon XT/350D during the last two weeks that I have owned this lens. Lightning fast autofocus. Bright, crystal clear images with incredible detail, beautiful colors and silky smooth out of focus backgrounds,(bokeh). Works great in low light even with my Kenko 1.4X teleconverter. Heavier than expected, but not a problem. I am able to take hand-held pictures without a tripod as I can easily use a fast shutter speed. One good surprise for me was that I was afraid that giving up 100mm over my Tamron 70-300mm fully zoomed out would limit my ability to take pictures of birds - but not so. There is very little difference between the 200mm Canon and the 300mm of the Tamron. No more non "L" lenses for me!

The grand appeal of this prime is that it costs a lot less than the 70-200/2.8 zoom equivalent, and it's much smaller. Unlike that zoom and any of the f/5.6 consumer zooms, it also takes well to a 1.4X teleconverter. The AF is fast, silent, and sure in almost any lighting, and because it's essentially a longer version of Canon's 135/2, this 200/2.8 is plenty sharp all the way from f/2.8.

It's not all roses though. 200mm on a crop body is a 320mm equivalent. That's a lot of lens to handhold without stabilization. Pure sharpness doesn't stand for much when the whole frame is blurred by handshake. Despite the f/2.8 aperture, this lens isn't all that forgiving when the shutter speeds drop below 1/400. 200mm is really the maximum non-IS focal length for handholding; with the crop factor, good technique and proper bracing are essential.

If you want versatility, the 200/2.8 is also not the best choice. Framing options are limited, and you'll rarely find the composition afforded by 200mm exactly matches what you intended. While the 70-200/2.8 series are no better optically than this lens, they'll get the shot every time purely by the ability to track an object at 70mm, and rapidly zoom to 200mm to take the picture. If your livelihood depends on your results, that's worth the price of admission.

But if you're not molting fifties, and you just want a sharp and fast telephoto that'll manage better shutter speeds and superior contrast to a consumer zoom, this 200/2.8L is a great choice.

the canon 200mm f/2.8 II offers a great package...
after using this lens for a while, i'm ashamed of all my non "L" glass..
this lens offer excellant Sharpness, contrast and color at f/2.8 ..
stopping down to f/4 pushes the sharpness from excellant to unreal..
i'm relentless when it comes to sharpness and i dig deep into the image and the slightest softness annoys me and although i am tempted to shoot alot at f/2.8 ( at this focal length the dof is pleasingly shallow ) i find that post processing easily pushes up the sharpness ..
don't be fooled by the MTF charts alone, i have a sigma 70-300 and it scores well in the center, but real results is disappointing .. and post processing doesnt help much.
i struggled with the decision to buy this prime over a zoom, but i can say now that the versitality of having a compact black fast and light weight prime out weighs the convenience of a zoom..
this focal length is great for street photography and relatively close wild life.. the speed and sharpness makes up for extra reach..
the price for value here is awesome... i can't recommend this lens enough

This 200 f2.8 L lens is an amazing value. The resulting photos are extremely sharp, colors rich and deep; it takes the 1.4x teleconverter well. Although the zoom lens are a wonderful convenience I personally find I am always at the long end of the telephoto within the 70-200 range. I own 9 Canon lens, owned the 70-200 f2.8 IS L and sold it, keeping this lens in its place. The advantages are many - I find it sharper, easier to handhold than the white lens at 200, it is possible to take it to affairs where they will not allow the big white lens, and much less conspicuous. My husband is not much on learning anything about taking photos; he goes on auto only, and his shots are outstanding with this lens. He is an artist and has a great eye; matched with this lens he gets what he wants.
The price is very good for such high quality; I consider this a real bargain. You can move up to the slightly faster canon 200 but the price skyrockets and for 99 % of people this one is what you want.,

I love this lens. I've already been shooting with it and have only had it for one day. So far, it meets/exceeds my expectations. I got it at a great price. So far, so good.

This is a 5 star lens. If you want a lens much smaller that the 70-200 2.8L and 70-200 F4L but want the quality the 200 F2.8L is the way to go. I purchased the 70-200 F4 and found it just a little to big. The 200 2.8 is perfect.I have also gotton excellent bokeh with this lens.
Pic here to see bokeh photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2820979
If you are looking for an all in one lens go buy a 28-300 zoom. This is not that lens.

Interestingly, the price has crept up a bit on this lens in the last few months. It's value must be becoming more apparent to more folks. Nice to have bought before it went up instead of vice versa.

Nevertheless, this is the most reasonably priced of the Canon L Primes & is a perfect one to start out with, if you don't own any yet. This lens is tack sharp, has very true, very vibrant color and high contrast. In all these areas, it is probably just shy of the 135mm, 85mm and 50mm lenses, but this is a discerning eye speaking, and these are subtle (although modestly notable differences). The difference between this and an ordinary Canon lens will be much greater.

As a side note - if you already own either or both the teleconverters (1.4x and 2x), they work very well with this lens. It maintains AF with both, due to it's speed. And this is a small light lens, considering the focal length. With a 2x it becomes a 400mm f/5.6, yet it is much lighter, narrower, and more portable than any comparable variation (the 100-400mm L, or any of the 400mm L primes, of which there are two, plus a non-L DO prime that looks like an L, and might fool you). If you intend to shoot all the way out at 400mm mostly, this is probably the cheapest method, and the quality loss is less with the 2x on this lens than with many/most others.

Whatever your choice, this is probably the most reasonable L value on the market and is a very smart buy if you wish to see what all the fuss is about.

And Yes, the fuss is warranted. L's are that good.