After using the Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS, old habits die hard. When using the 200mm F2.8 L, after half-pressing the Canon 1Ds Mark III’s shutter button I tend to pause - waiting for the image stabilization to kick in. Doh! I like image stabilization on telephoto lenses because it also steadies the viewfinder and makes it easier to keep the auto focus points on target. I wish Canon would add IS to the Canon 135mm L F2.0 and 200mm L F2.8. It probably will not happen, but it is on my never-ending Canon wish list.

PERFORMANCE

The Canon 200mm F2.8 is very sharp on the Canon 1Ds Mark III, especially so at F4 to F8. The 200mm F2.8 produces rich colors, and this may be the lens’ best attribute. Keeping in mind the images posted in this review have been edited in Photoshop. The bokeh (background blur) is pleasing, but not as extreme as I would like. Contrast is good at F4 through F11. The contrast at F2.8 can lack punch at times, but with a couple quick levels adjustment in Photoshop, the contrast begins to come to life. Thus far flare has not been issue, nor have there been any other ugly surprises.

The Canon 200mm F2.8 L is a nice, safe, middle-of-the-road lens. It is fairly easy to use, performs well and does not have any extraordinary bad habits such as a propensity to flare. My one legitimate complaint is its F2.8 performance - simply put, the 200mm F2.8 is not as sharp at F2.8 as I think it should be. Over the years I have had three copies of the 200mm F2.8 L. The outcome has been the same each - amusing lens, but ultimately is was sold in favor of something else. More on this in a bit.

In June 2008 we added two new Golden Retriever puppies and this was a whole new shooting realm (for me). Chasing around puppies has been a new challenge compared to the usual landscapes and still life subjects. AI/Servo focus on the Canon 1Ds Mark III was pretty quick. Many of the shots were OOF’d (out of focus), but that was mostly user error on my part because I rarely shoot in AI mode. Also the puppies where continually coming towards me and were quickly closer than the 200mm’s minimum focus distance. For the setting and working space, 200mm was too long. A Canon 135mm L would have been easier to manage in that setting.

1. ★NOTE - In mid 2008 Canon started announcing various autofocus fixes for the Canon 1Ds Mark III. Unfortunately, it seems the 1Ds Mark III had similar focus issues like its infamous sibling, the Canon 1D Mark III. Ultimately my 1Ds Mark III did go back to Canon for a string of updates / fixes, so I do not know if somewhat lacking focus was due to the Canon 1Ds Mark III (prior to its fixes) or because of the 200mm F2.8 L. Or, of course, it could have been pilot error. There is just no way to know for sure...
   

COMPARED TO...

My opinion on the 200mm F2.8 L is mixed. In its favor it is a good performing lens at a reasonable price compared to other Canon L lenses. But there is not the ooo-la-la wow factor. Here are some quick opinions on the other 200mm options:

1. •If wide open performance is the most important consideration, I would pick the Canon 135mm F2 L over the Canon 200mm F2.8 L. The 135L is sharper at F2, has more contrast and the bokeh does have that ooo-la-la wow factor.
   

2. •With the Canon 200mm F2.8 L the transition between background blur and the plane of focus is not very dramatic. Having previously owned a Canon 200mm F1.8 L, the Canon 200mm F1.8 L has better bokeh, but its sharpness at F1.8 to F2.4 was not an impressive as expected.
   

3. •The price difference between the new Canon 200mm F2 L IS and F2.8 L is huge - $5300 vs $769!!! Spending 7X more is crazy, but that is price of admission. If I was hard-core portrait shooter and earned a living from photography, for outdoor portraits I might be able to justify the 200mm F2 L IS.
   

4. •Most people are probably debating between a Canon 135L and the 200L (F2.8). In my experience the Canon 135L is sharper. The 135L also has more pleasing bokeh. Overall I think the 135L is a better lens, but the 135mm focal length can be tricky to work with - too long indoors, not enough reach outdoors. And if 200m is needed, the 135L is not 200mm.
   

5. •The Mamiya 200mm F2.8 APO has the most character to its renderings; however, only when shooting on large 48x36mm sensor. I have tried using the Mamiya on Canon dSLRs and found focus difficult. The Mamiya’s colors are bolder, more contrasty. Canon tends towards the yellows and reds, whereas the Mamiya has a more traditional neutral balance between red-green-blue. For Mamiya 645M / 645AFD shooters, I whole-heartedly recommend the Mamiya 200mm F2.8 APO. For Canon shooters, the Mamiya is a great lens - but only for those people who are comfortable with adapters, manual focus and stop-down metering.
   

CONCLUSION

For travel and vacations, my vote is the Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS. For non-travel/vacation shooting, I like the 200mm F2.8 L - but prefer the Canon 135mm F2 L USM. The Canon 200mm F2.8 L is a very good lens, but for some reason I always end up selling it. Meanwhile the Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS and Canon 135mm F2 L USM tend to stick around year after year. A quick review of the Canon 135mm F2 L was recently added, click here for the review.

The images to the right include samples from most of the other lenses mentioned. Be sure to read the notes on each image.