OVERVIEW

Most Canon users cover 200mm with one Canon’s 70-200mm L zoom lenses. I do the same. Over the years the Canon 70-200mm L F4 IS has proven to be a great travel / vacation lens. The 70-200mm L F4 IS is quite sharp and the IS (image stabilization) is outstanding; however, its shortcoming is the bokeh. F4 is not a particularly wide aperture, so isolating the subject from the background can be difficult. For portraits I like to use a narrow depth of field (DOF) to separate the subject from the background, and this is where the Canon 200mm F2.8 USM Mark II has an advantage.

ZOOM VS PRIME

I have owned all the Canon 70-200mm zooms and feel the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L Mark II to be the best one (review here). However, the lens is quite heavy, especially if just for casual use. Before the 70-200mm F2.8 Mark II was announced, I used the 70-200mm F4 L IS. The Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS is a lightweight lens and easily fits into most camera bags. In my 2-3 years with 70-200mm F4 IS, it has been a great travel lens. Canon’s image stabilization (IS) is excellent, shooting 200mm at 1/30th is very do-able. The 70-200mm F4 L IS did a great in San Francisco and in Hawaii as well. The only downside to the 70-200mm F4 L IS is the F4 aperture - which can have a bit too much DOF at times.

In 2010 I purchased Canon’s newest 70-200mm F2.8 IS Zoom - the Mark II. Optically the new F2.8 L IS Mark II is every bit as sharp as Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS - and it has the added advantage of F2.8. The new 70-200mm F2.8 L IS Mark II has two disadvantages - price and weight. The Canon 200mm F2.8 L prime weights 1.7 pounds and is about 30% shorter than the zooms. The Canon 200mm F2.8 uses fewer elements (nine in total), so it has less light loss than a zoom - which improves shutter speeds (about a one stop improvement). Using a 200mm prime offers better quality, but at the expense of flexibility. Is the added quality worth giving up the ease of a zoom? This is something I still struggle with today. Eventually I sold the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS Mark II for the 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS (review here). From time to time I still use the 200mm F2.8 L USM, but to honest, 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS sees much more use.

HANDLING

The Canon 200mm F2.8 uses a rear inner focus system, so lens length remains unchanged while focusing. The front element does not rotate - which is good when using circular polarizers and gradient filters. The rear focus design improves focus speed (less mass being moved). The 200mm F2.8 uses Canon Ultrasonic (USM) autofocus motors which are quiet (almost silent) and quick. Sports shooters can further increase autofocus speed by setting the focus limiter selector to 3.5 meters.

The 200mm F2.8 is well balanced with its weight evenly distributed. On the Canon 1Ds Mark III the 200mm F2.8 feels light and does not pull the camera downward. The 200mm F2.8 feels durable, there are no rattles or clunks inside the lens. Some of Canon’s IS lenses feel fragile because the inner workings move around as the lens as handled. For me those sounds are a concern - will something get knocked out of alignment if the lens jostled around in a camera bag? In comparison the 200mm F2.8 feels like a lens you can “use” it and not like something you have to worry about should it get bounced around in the camera bag.

The 200mm F2.8‘s lens hood is long, so with the hood attached the overall kit is large and bulky. To reduce the bulk, I do not use the lens hood at times. Under normal conditions shooting without the hood works fine.