Gear of Yesteryear: DPReviewTV reviews the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM

#21
I have a 200 1.8 and a 200 2.0 and love them both. The 1.8 works fantastic on the R5.
I bought the 2.0 because the 1.8 stopped focusing . After a few years I tried it on the R and it’s back.
Could someone please give the name of the repair place in Michigan?
I wa told they are not repairable.
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#23
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
#24
Heavy like hell and unwieldy. But beautiful - even unique - rendering. Pretty much sums it up for me. Never got to use it on the 5DSR, but it performed very well on the previous Canon DSLRs. The newer 200mm f2.0 is a much better build and is not nearly as cumbersome in use. The big advantage of the f1.8 was its lead elements. It took Canon years to come up with coatings to compensate effectively for removing the lead. That is why several older Canon lenses were optically better than their predecessors. The - less than stellar - original 70-200mm f2.8 IS L being the most notorious case. The 200mm f1.8 btw got a bad rap, because Canon officially stopped servicing it only a couple of years after they stopped production. Ouch...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#25
She said in the video that RF lenses enable R5 to focus on eye iris. But EF lenses focus on eye lashes (probably because they try to focus on eye iris but if an eye lash gets between the iris and camera then camera focuses on the item closer to the camera). I've never heard that before. So is this true that only RF lenses manage to focus on eye iris even if the eye lash gets into the way?
 
Upvote 0
#27
This blog confirms what I always have been convinced of.
It's not the wide-open MTFs which matter, but a lens' rendering, or should I name it character?
A clinically sharp lens, like some Sigmas, sometimes lack the "magic" wide-open rendering of some vintage lenses (Canon EF 1,2/85, Summilux 1,4/75 etc...).
Sharpness certainly matters, contrast too, but imperfections have advantages as well.
To repeat myself: a lens isn't designed for shooting charts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#29
usern4cr said:
Thanks for the post, Dolina. It was a good video to see. I guess the LensLibrary in Malaysia is a special place for cameras in that part of the world?
Click to expand...
Haven't been back to Malaysia since the 2000 Malaysian GP. ;) I just did a youtube search on the lens.

Before COVID I was planning to go there for a food trip. I think round trip tickets are ~$250.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#32
risto0 said:
She said in the video that RF lenses enable R5 to focus on eye iris. But EF lenses focus on eye lashes (probably because they try to focus on eye iris but if an eye lash gets between the iris and camera then camera focuses on the item closer to the camera). I've never heard that before. So is this true that only RF lenses manage to focus on eye iris even if the eye lash gets into the way?
Click to expand...
I have two EF mount lenses. One is from Canon, and one from Tamron. I have had no issues as a portrait shooter at all. Maybe the problem is specific to certain lenses? I wouldn't know. Admittedly, I use an R, not the R5.
 
Upvote 0
#33
Ohhhhh woooow! Totally amazing images! This lense really sparked my interest since my EF 100-400mm sometimes isn't bright enough to take pictures of forest wildlife at dawn. The only downsides:
- weight
- even tough 20 years old, I so far only found one offer on eBay Germany and it is still at 4.500 $... I'll keep looking

If Canon were to make an RF Version of this lense: Is there any chance it would be a lot lighter?
Although, I don´ think I could ever afford an RF 200 F1.8 (F2.0) with the RF markup prices. But I least I've got a new dream
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#34
Del Paso said:
This blog confirms what I always have been convinced of.
It's not the wide-open MTFs which matter, but a lens' rendering, or should I name it character?
A clinically sharp lens, like some Sigmas, sometimes lack the "magic" wide-open rendering of some vintage lenses (Canon EF 1,2/85, Summilux 1,4/75 etc...).
Sharpness certainly matters, contrast too, but imperfections have advantages as well.
To repeat myself: a lens isn't designed for shooting charts...
Click to expand...
the 135L
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#35
risto0 said:
She said in the video that RF lenses enable R5 to focus on eye iris. But EF lenses focus on eye lashes (probably because they try to focus on eye iris but if an eye lash gets between the iris and camera then camera focuses on the item closer to the camera). I've never heard that before. So is this true that only RF lenses manage to focus on eye iris even if the eye lash gets into the way?
Click to expand...
I heard this from others. Have not seen it myself. But then again - there's hardly any people to shoot these days... :cry:.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#36
Exploreshootshare said:
Ohhhhh woooow! Totally amazing images! This lense really sparked my interest since my EF 100-400mm sometimes isn't bright enough to take pictures of forest wildlife at dawn. The only downsides:
- weight
- even tough 20 years old, I so far only found one offer on eBay Germany and it is still at 4.500 $... I'll keep looking

If Canon were to make an RF Version of this lense: Is there any chance it would be a lot lighter?
Although, I don´ think I could ever afford an RF 200 F1.8 (F2.0) with the RF markup prices. But I least I've got a new dream
Click to expand...
The new 200mm f/2.0 is so much better to use. Even if only a little lighter. Expect a new super-fast 200mm would be still lighter to use. Count on a half pound less for the lens and another half for your wallet.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#38
A few of the 200mm F1.8's popped up in the 2nd hand camera shops in Singapore a while back.
I was thinking who in their right minds would lug one of these about, just looked so big.

Piqued my interest though and reading a few reviews decided to buy one.
Unfortunately for me they were all gone when I went to buy.
After a couple of months I gave up and bought the 200mm F2
My favourite Canon lens, works well on the adaptor with the R, not had a chance to try out on the R5 but hopefully soon
 
Upvote 0
#39
Fischer said:
The new 200mm f/2.0 is so much better to use. Even if only a little lighter. Expect a new super-fast 200mm would be still lighter to use. Count on a half pound less for the lens and another half for your wallet.
Click to expand...

Thx for the reply. I didn't have in mind that the F1.8 doesn't have IS.
I'll look for a used F2.0 but I doubt there'll be a "cheap" one available. I'll probably just stick to my 100-400mm or may upgrade to the RF 100-500mm one day.
 
Upvote 0
#40
briangus said:
A few of the 200mm F1.8's popped up in the 2nd hand camera shops in Singapore a while back.
I was thinking who in their right minds would lug one of these about, just looked so big.

Piqued my interest though and reading a few reviews decided to buy one.
Unfortunately for me they were all gone when I went to buy.
After a couple of months I gave up and bought the 200mm F2
My favourite Canon lens, works well on the adaptor with the R, not had a chance to try out on the R5 but hopefully soon
Click to expand...

I own the f/2 as well as the 1.8. It's a brilliant lens and definitely has a more modern rendering and better ergonomics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z “Sharpest Zoom Ever”
Replies
0
Views
2K
Richard CR
Richard CR
Richard CR
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z is the “Sharpest Zoom Ever”
Replies
36
Views
3K
OldDudePhotog
O
Canon Rumors
Here’s a little bit of fun: Juza has posted a review of the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
Replies
10
Views
778
Nemorino
Nemorino
Canon Rumors
Stock Notice: Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z at B&H Photo
Replies
1
Views
627
freejay
F
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z joins supply shortage list
Replies
40
Views
4K
vjlex
vjlex
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu