I love the 2.8 L II as well. I can carry my camera around without any extra effort and even carry it around with me in my messenger bag when I may or may not need it. If I was lugging around the 2.0, I would need a caddy.
Upvote
0
Gear of Yesteryear: DPReviewTV reviews the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I love the 2.8 L II as well. I can carry my camera around without any extra effort and even carry it around with me in my messenger bag when I may or may not need it. If I was lugging around the 2.0, I would need a caddy.
This and the 600 f/4L IS USM are the reason I am still thinking of Canon bodies. At this point I have about 9 EF lenses but no Canon bodies. I have shot the EF 200mm f/1.8 with my 5D4 and never felt like it focused on eye lashes. I did micro focus adjustment on Canon DSLRs. I know that is not a thing for mirrorless cameras. The two things I don't like about this lens is the weight and the MFD. The MFD is 18 feet for this lens. This is a fantastic lens for portraits and there is none like this in any other mounts that I am aware of.
Upvote
0
I purchased this lens about 20 years ago. It is still in good working order, except I have had to replace screws that hold the shade in place. My primary use is basketball, and other indoor sports. Never had a case, as I bought it used on eBay. One historical note: My understanding is that this lens has flourite elements in it, and Canon dc'd production due to environmental concerns at the factory, and replaced it with the 200mm F2.0L. I also understand there is someone who shoots alot of horse racing, and owns seven of these 1.8 lenses to use as remotes.
Upvote
0
I've been to Indonesia (which has the same word for the same food) and that's good stuff. As was a lot of other things there.
I can't just casually fly there for nasi goreng, though...not when it's 30+ hours one way from Colorado USA!
Upvote
0
I think it's just a 3+ hour trip for us though
Even at your airfare, though, it's still what pilots call the $100 hamburger. (You fly your private aircraft to another airport to eat the food in the pilot's restaurant. By the time you pay for fuel and wear and tear on the plane that hamburger cost you big bucks.)
Upvote
0
I know people who do it worse than me.
Some just book at the airport for Hong Kong for lunch. Be back at home for dinner. Just because they want a Michelin star meal
Flying to the province cost $40 for a round trip. The check-in counter of the first flight often issues you a ticket for the return flight if you have no intention to have check-in baggage.
Upvote
0
Yeah well, if a person is a Canon shooter with Canon mount lenses, switching over to Nikon from Canon is absolutely not less expensive. These types of arguments are silly, in my opinion. The average person can’t afford to switch systems at will.
Besides, why would one desire “cheap” stuff as opposed to “quality “ stuff. I’m not saying Nikon makes cheap stuff, you did. Just pointing out the obvious misuse of the word “cheap”.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
If you are referring to the Nikon f/2 200, it is the same price as the Canon. $5699. Is there a 1.8 Nikon I am not aware of?
If I did not get the gist of your post either, perhaps next time you could use more than 4 words to make your point.
Upvote
0
Nah. The four words of your post are not hard to remember. Is there an adapter for Nikon F to either EF or RF with the necessary electrical connections for IS and AF? There are without the connections, so the Nikon lens becomes manual focus... no matter what the model. I, personally, would stick to a Canon with AF for what I do. Why you'd bring Nikon into this thread is a mystery. Maybe you should read the thread again? It's about a Canon legacy lens.Think you need to re-read the thread again...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
