Canon 200mm f/2.8 USM 'L' ii lens review with samples (Full-frame and APS-C)

A lot of photographers dream of getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens one day - so what makes this 200mm prime lens so attractive? In this review, you'll discover more about the handling and technical performance of this classic Canon lens, and why, if you need 200mm, you should seriously consider this piece of kit.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):
USA: amzn.to/3c9Adjn
UK: amzn.to/39WBV5o
If you've found this or other videos I've made to be helpful, then support me on Patreon! www.patreon.co...
All pictures and footage shot by me on Canon 6D and 70D cameras.
Be sure to follow my Photostream on Flickr, to see sample pictures of lenses I've reviewed and to see previews of upcoming lenses, too! www.flickr.com...
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons...

[@davidrodgers5534]

I would love to see a "throwback series" with testing of some of these older lenses like this one specifically on current generation bodies like an R5 or adapted to a Sony a7r-x or something ... it think it would be really neat to show people which of these lenses are still really good value for the money when adapted vs not worth it.

[@jamesvalentine9553]

i got rid of my 70-200 2.8 is ii for this lens. Very happy. The 70-200mm garnered too much attention when i was only shooting sporting events of my children. Your review helped make my decision easy THANKS

[@DavesWatchLove]

This lens is a best kept secret. It's about the size of a soda can, so I can get it into any professional sporting event with no questions at all. When I had a Sigma 70-200 2.8, I noticed in my Lightroom EXIF data that about 90% of the time, I was shooting at 200mm. So moving to this increased my picture quality significantly with very little loss of versatility. And my kids now have a mountains of good photographic memories of all their sporting events throughout the years. Great review, Chris!

[@TheGray01974]

Have you used this lens under the lights at a evening football match

[@adidasaddict]

I've just swapped my 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) for this lens. I found I used the 70-200 almost exclusively at 200mm and the size & weight, plus f/2.8 really appealed. I just received the 200mm today so will hopefully get chance to try it out soon. (I use both these lenses on A7 III & MC-11)

[@muaathe78]

Would love to see a review using EOS R or EOS R6 with this lens

[@Ultrarmx]

Can you revisit this lens with a Canon R5 mirrorless?

[@nicedward7544]

Honestly one of the best lenses ever made. Super sharp but still has it's own character whereas many modern lenses just kinda seem plain in the rendering. I've owned this lens for 20 years. First one got stolen but bought another one in the first iteration. Have since moved to Sony but still use this lens a ton on my a7Riii. The AF is still fast and accurate enough for sports and birds. Let a wedding photographer try it at a friend's wedding and he said he was buying one ASAP for his Sony as well. It's funny seeing people being amazed by this 30 year old glass.

[@bijosn]

is there a big difference between the version 1 and 2 (ii) of this lens?

[@nicedward7544]

@@bijosn optically no. Version 1 has a smaller lens hood that is built into it that slides out

[@bijosn]

@@nicedward7544 thanks, much appreciated

[@juliogonzalez7773]

A great piece is timeless, this will go down as one of the greatest lenses ever made considering size and price

[@YuriFineart]

Great review as always chris, I am a landscape photographer and use a very long focal length of 200-400mm quite a lot for mountains, far away lakes, Forests etc.. I really enjoy shooting with such long focal length as it gives a completely different look and feel to an image

[@christopherfrost]

YuriFineart I found that, too. I try to keep a zoom lens handy, but all my best landscapes seem to be in the 85-200mm range

[@Scyth3934]

@@christopherfrost Can you PLEASE re-review this?

[@drewksailing5552]

I own this lens with the Canon 6D and Chris is correct on all fronts. Great lens for the money but to bad it's not weather sealed.

[@YasserSultan]

Thanks, Christopher for reviewing this lens as promised. I think you will do so many people a favor if you make a comparison of some of canon's telephoto portrait lenses (Canon 135 F2, Canon 70-200 F4 IS, Canon 200 F2.8, Canon 70-200 F 2.8 Non IS may be?) These are the alternatives to the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, and they're relatively affordable. Many people are torn between these four as far as I can see the questions posted in many forums. No one made this comparison yet. Cheers

[@smaakjeks]

Yasser Sultan That's a great idea!

[@chinadollcjo]

agreed, i need to add a fast telephit for wedding ceremonies and i keep flipflopping on this!

[@moonlightlife3747]

exactly my confusion between this and 135mm for portraits

[@ZadieBear]

I love this lens! When I went to Sony, I bought this new (yes new) because I loved the focal length so much.

[@Kunoswildworld]

I found 200 mm is really good for landscape where you will stitch photos to make panoroma

[@maltimoto]

The 70-200 2.8 IS L II USM is very good, but trust me...no one wants to carry it around the whole day on a wedding. I prefer the Canon 135 mm f/2 L which offers stellar image quality and is quite light (700 g). Plus it is the best compromise solution for church and candid shots.

[@csmorgan]

I guess I'm the one person who doesn't mind carrying it around :) I love the 70-200

[@shadowandsoul4331]

@@csmorgan For me the 24-70 is a beast, I cannot imagine dealing with the weight of 70-200 2.8

[@cyrilhamel8289]

Great to see your reviews of those "oldies" Pleeeaaaazzzz... The 20-35/2.8 now... 🙏🏻

[@erickyanez7866]

Nice review on a very overlooked lens! BTW, your hands are HUGE. They make that lens look tiny...

[@whitefang8329]

I just double check. On APS-C camera this lens becomes 320mm ? Thank you.

[@Topbuzzr]

I have owned this lens and I can say YES . £400 I payed and sold for £450 Time spent with this was special. I could pull it out without worrying about being mugged and for stills is outstanding. The 135 is better but not by much.

[@ggessex]

I was hoping for a review of this lens, now here is! Excellent review.

[@VictorvanDijkNL]

I had this lens on my wishlist for quite some time. Local secondhand prices vary between 450 and 550 euro. Which makes this a quite affordable L lens (other 'cheap' 'options: 17-40/4, 70-200/4, 24-105/4 IS). When one popped up for EUR 350, I could not let it pass. It performs good on my EOS R and 5D nark II. On my 7D mark II it required a +10 micro adjustment, to focus correctly on distances beyound 5 meters.

[@ktk0358]

Also, which would you recommend the prime 200mm or the 80-200 drainpipe?? Sharpness being the more important over zoom.

[@btrdangerdan2010]

I just picked up this lens yesterday for only $100, the first version with built in good, I'm excited to test it out!

[@scarpography]

100?? I thought mine for 289€ was cheap (fist version as well)

[@rockeredbunny]

Christopher, your reviews are the best!))

[@pulseimages]

I’ve handled both the 200mm 2.8 L II and 135mm 2.0 L in a camera store on my 6D. The 135 L was easier to handhold and felt well balanced. The 200 L did not and I could see would be challenging to obtain sharp images handheld.

[@dewvisuals8110]

thank you for this comment. I just had my 135 stolen so I am in a pinch and was looking at the 200. Think I'll stick with my gut and get another 135

[@nicedward7544]

I handhold mine all the time doing bird and nature shots. I do have in camera stabe but it holds up to the 42mp sensor and results are amazing. Can't go wrong with either 135 or the 200 but I will say my 135 sits on the shelf much more than my 200

[@wil518]

i love your voice :P it's so relaxing :D

[@ReggieABrown]

LOVE YOUR REVIEWS MAN!!! KEEP UP THE OUTSTANDING WORK!!! Do you plan on reviewing the Canon 16-35 f4L IS anytime soon? Thanks Chris

[@natype]

Reggie Brown I'm curious as well!

[@Ship20001]

Reggie Brown I rented it once for an event and I can tell you that you don't need a video to explain the fact it is amazing. It is tack sharp even on a Canon T3i. The IS is great and I was even able to get 1s exposures handheld. It is F4 so it isn't the best in low light, but with that IS if your subject is still enough I think you would be fine. That's all I can say about it. It's 10/10 in my book.

[@ReggieABrown]

Ship2000 Thanks for the reply! I was curious about its performance on an apsc camera. F4 doesn't bother me, especially on a wide angle lens. And I can crank my iso up to around 3200 and still get a very usable image with the 7d mark ii. And the weather sealing is a definite plus for that lens.

[@csmorgan]

I know I'm late to the party but my 16-35 f4 is one of my all time favorites

[@ianlarman3641]

Hi Christopher, nice review. I was considering this setup as well, 200mm with converter? Maybe a 7D mark 2. Any thoughts as I'm going to the IOM TT and guess i will need a fast lens. I also considered the 300mm sigma 2.8. Thoughts please

[@christopherfrost]

This would be a very nice start. Without spending a huge amount of money, 200mm and f/2.8 is about as fast as you can get

[@TheEquinoxeHD]

Nice review as always. Is there any chance for Nikon lenses reviews in the future?

[@christopherfrost]

***** Not any time soon, but maybe a couple of years in the future I may look at Fuji or Nikon...I'm a bit busy these days TBH!

[@RickyLJones]

Excellent review.

[@MohondhaY]

Chris, could you please compare this lens to the 70-200mm 2.8 versions? A lot of us would greatly appreciate it!

[@chinadollcjo]

How is the focusing speed or performance in low light? Is it comparable to the 70-200?

[@i422mas]

Hi Chris How big a difference would there be in the depth of field of an image using a lens with f2.8 compared to a f1.8

[@christopherfrost]

***** f/2.8 gives just over double the amount of depth of field

[@i422mas]

Christopher Frost Photography thanks so much

[@aenraj]

This lens vs ef-s 55-250mm in sharpness, which is better ?

[@smaakjeks]

Great review!

[@ktk0358]

I really enjoy your reviews. Would you share your opinion using this with extension tube to turn it towards closer focus and macro use...? I plan to use mc11 on 42Mpix Sony. Thanks

[@nicedward7544]

Haven't tried with extension tubes but it is fast and sharp on my Sony R using mc11

[@DJBastor]

shall I sell it for the 70-200 2.8 L ii is usm

[@Fathermaws]

No weather sealing gasket seems like such a bad shortcut to have.

[@JoeJacksonJr]

Another great review.

[@teameakaray-grover6121]

Christopher, Is the new 70-300mm F 4-5.6 is ii lens, with its new nano usm tech, a better choice than the 200mm f/2.8 USM 'L' ii prime? Have you had a chance to review a copy of this lens? Also, what lens would you recommend for bird/wildlife photography on a budget? I was considering getting the 200mm f/2.8 USM 'L' ii prime with a 1.4 or 2.0x ii canon extender to save $. Any thoughts? Recommendations?

[@christopherfrost]

Haven't tested it yet I'm afraid. If you want wildlife photography on a budget then try the Tamron 150-600 or Sigma 150-600 'C'

[@teameakaray-grover6121]

Thanks! As always... Spectacular review!

[@ianlarman3641]

Hi Christopher, nice review. I was considering the above setup as well, 200mm with converter? Any thoughts as I'm going to the IOM TT and guess i will need a fast lens. I also considered the 300mm sigma 2.8. Thoughts please

[@vladutdavid]

Could you do a review at Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0?

[@christopherfrost]

Vlad C Nah. It's a bit too old really. Bryan over at the-digital-picture took some image quality pictures and its really soft in its corners, apparently

[@vladutdavid]

+Christopher Frost Photography Thank's, I have to chose between tamron 17-35 and canon 17-40, I thought I'd save some money if I buy the tamron,but I will go with the canon

[@arthurlbn]

When you compare the 200mm 2.8 ii with 85 Sigma art, has a huge difference ? In term off sharpness

[@christopherfrost]

The Sigma lens will be a little bit sharper but there's not much in it

[@cyberchick87]

Great review Chris :-)

[@moonlightlife3747]

this one or 135mm f2 ? thanks for helping me choose my portrait lens.

[@christopherfrost]

It's a question of taste. Personally I'd go for the 135mm f/2

[@Diostillrocks]

It may be a little tight to use this lens for portraits, especially if you use a crop camera.

[@moonlightlife3747]

thanks for the help , i use 6d actually

[@adrianak.91]

very interesting lens on a crop I think, smaller, cheaper and lighter and a smaller price than a comparable 70-200 you trade in IS and the convenience of zoom in favor of ergonomics wish they came out with a IS verison, would be nice I think

[@obiwanmartyn]

+Adriana K. they have a 200mm f2 is it costs nearly $6,000

[@obiwanmartyn]

+Adriana K. www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html

[@wakaphwap]

keep up the good work

[@childoftheKING12]

Would this one work for small fashion shows ? They are small town but in a huge not well lit stage

[@christopherfrost]

It could be quite useful for that, yes

[@kaydawgy1999]

how does the lens perform with mirrorless cams like the EOS R?

[@nicedward7544]

Works flawlessly on my Sony so I'd assume it would work fine on the R

[@Alda1981]

does anyone notice a hum on the lens even when its not focusing?

[@sottheaphoeurng9044]

Hi sir I really want to see you a text about canon 70-200mm mark iii. Please sir.

[@findthesun474]

Considering this lens for astrophotography, what do you think? Another option is Samyang 135mm f/2 ED. Which one is cooler? I don't mind 200mm vs 135mm, but optics quality is paramount.

[@christopherfrost]

+FINDTHESUN Most people doing astrophotography use very wide angle lenses. I would always choose the lens with the widest angle and the widest maximum aperture for astrophotography work

[@findthesun474]

Thanks for the reply. I'm wondering chromatic aberration, sharpness etc wise, which one would you recommend? This new Samyang is getting very nice reviews, but the Canon has also proved itself isn't it?

[@christopherfrost]

+FINDTHESUN Take a look at my reviews, and you'll see all the results I have :-)

[@findthesun474]

Christopher Frost Photography Watched them both, great job, I like your reviews. 👍

[@Thefuror38500]

Well, you probably did your thing at this point, but this lens is amazing in astrophotography :)

[@venturasurfing]

Has anyone found a good tripod collar for this lens, preferably black? It certainly looks like it has provision for one to go on it.

[@neil712]

Canon tripod ring A (B)

[@xpy1]

which is the best for portraits headshots weddings and events the 200 mm or the 24-105

[@christopherfrost]

The 200mm. Even better would be a 135mm f/2 lens, in my opinion

[@xpy1]

Ok

[@Ultrarmx]

What would you recommend? The Canon 135mm f2 or 200mm f2.8II for a APS-C?

[@christopherfrost]

Depends what you're trying to do, but I'd probably go for the 135mm lens

[@Ultrarmx]

I'm going to use it for portraits, church events, some landscape and sports.

[@christopherfrost]

For portraits and church events, both would be great. For landscapes 135mm might be preferable, for sports, 200mm is preferable

[@AlfonsoIaMinecraft]

How does this compare to 200mm f2.8 Mark I?

[@christopherfrost]

No idea I'm afraid!

[@md.yeasin5214]

please make a video with canon 200mm f2.8 vs 135 f2 vs sigma 135mm f 1.8............. please................

[@christopherfrost]

Nah, I would have to hire them all again

[@Scyth3934]

Hi, can you re-review this?

[@keving869]

Can you review the Canon 80-200mm f2.8 L lens?

[@christopherfrost]

The Magic Drainpipe...maybe one day :-)

[@back40canoe]

I use the collar off of my 400mm f/5.6 L on it and it’s perfect except white

[@cricketer3135]

Great review , would this lens work with Sony a7iii sigma MC 11 ?? Thanks

[@raphaelcoelho1557]

yes, it will. And in such case A7III is stable not need for IS

[@willherondale6367]

Yep great combo!

[@cricketer3135]

Will Herondale could you tell autofocus on video ?? Thank you very much,

[@EmoEmu]

Adapt it to a Sony A7ii or newer camera and you'll be able to use it with in-body stabilization. :)

[@rehanpirzada2475]

The Emo Emu just like a photographer named Jason did!

[@F84WarEAGLE]

Should I buy this or 70-200 f/4 IS for wildlife? My main wildlife lens is 400mm f/5.6 but I also would like to have a shorter telephoto lens. I'm using Canon 70D. Thanks!

[@christopherfrost]

It's up to you! Image stabilization will be very useful.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

One of the few Canon lenses which Nikon doesn't offer an equivalent lens.

[@edwinvelasquez8719]

Is this weather sealed???

[@MohondhaY]

Nope

[@lilblingking1491]

This lens is kind of heavy...do you use a tripod collar with it?

[@christopherfrost]

+lilblingking1491 No, that's only for really heavy lenses

[@lilblingking1491]

+Christopher Frost Photography Alright, thanks! I was a little curious because I saw a collar online designed for this lens, the 70-200 f/4, and 400 5.6

[@a.b.s_productions]

It's not that heavy. I don't think you would need a tripod for it.

[@Jessietheng]

do you think this lens is suitable for concert?

[@christopherfrost]

+JESSIE THENG It would be alright, yes, although I'd rather work with the 135mm f/2 for that purpose

[@oudjunk]

I'm confused. This lens and 135mm f2. Which one is better? I wanna buy a new lens for portrait.

[@christopherfrost]

It depends what kind of lens you want. I would go for the 135mm f/2, a lot easier to use

[@rehanpirzada2475]

Christopher Frost Photography what do you mean it's easier? Please reply because I actually need help buying between the 200mm and the 135mm

[@christopherfrost]

The wider aperture and wider angle makes it easier to do handheld photography

[@rehanpirzada2475]

Christopher Frost Photography I actually use a tripod so that doesn't matter, but which one would be better for portraits? (I don't need practicality I just need pure image quality and optics) thanks Chris!

[@csmorgan]

As an owner of the 135 I will say it doesn't get much better for portraits or any other subject isolation photos, you will not be disappointed

[@jaredcarnes3936]

What year did this lens come out?

[@christopherfrost]

Google tells me, 1996

[@jaredcarnes3936]

what about this particular model?

[@christopherfrost]

This particular copy of the lens? I have no idea!

[@eliasali9383]

Its hard .. I am limited to 700$ i dont know what to get 1 canon 70-200 f4 L + 1.4x or 2x teleconverter 2 sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 apo 3 this lens + 2x teleconverter 4 tamron 70-200 2.8 DI LD IF macro lens + teleconverter I am intrested in portrait and bird photography and wildlife in general and landscape I am looking for an all in one lens + i dont care about wide angle lens It will be my only lens Help.. 

[@christopherfrost]

Elias Ali That's something to think about, isn't it. Personally I'd go for the Canon 70-200 + 1.4x teleconverter

[@eliasali9383]

I did a research and people say that the 70-200 with a teleconverter isn't good for wild life.. Man its hard to choose a lens when you are on budget.. Thanks anyway I appreciate your help and keep doing what you are doing 😊👍

[@Nurg1982]

+Elias Ali that's because with the converter your f-stop drops to F/5.6-F/6.3. This means for wildlife photography you'd need a higher iso to get the 1/1000th of a sec shutter speed to catch stills of moving animals (birds at least)

[@eliasali9383]

Frans van Terwisga I shoot still birds with my 75-300 at f8 with 1/250 shutter

[@eliasali9383]

Frans van Terwisga I am very careful about my ISO because I'm shooting with t3i

[@Xenol1997]

Thanks so much! :)

[@christopherfrost]

Xenol1997 You're welcome! Is this the one you were asking for a review of?

[@Xenol1997]

It was indeed. It's one of the options on the table for me. I am also looking at the vintage 80-200mm 2.8L, which sells for a similar price on ebay.

[@christopherfrost]

Xenol1997 I'm definitely curious about that lens - Ken Rockwell talks about it all the time hehe. Not sure how good its autofocus will be though

[@Xenol1997]

I've seen some video comparisons on youtube (usually in Russian) that seem to show that it is very fast, but not all that quiet.

[@Xenol1997]

If I end up getting one, you can have a borrow to review ;)

[@SerafeimZormpas]

@christopherfrost Will this lens perform equally well on an aps-c camera? I have the 700D and i am willing to use it for outdors street and occasionally event and sports photography what do you think?

[@christopherfrost]

+Serafeim Zormpas Watch the review and you'll see how it performs on APS-C

[@SerafeimZormpas]

I've seen it ~3 times i am just noq tuie sure if i'll get same results i'm afraid that in low light conditions it will be more difficult to use, probably start saving and buy it when i upgrade to full frame.. xD

[@andylaurel]

I have this lens, and a 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and for most situations, the zoom lens is better. The prime would be better for shooting indoor sports when you really need a 1/500th or 1/1000th shutter speed and the IS of the zoom lens doesn't help. But it performs well on my 60D.

[@stevenmeans6873]

does it have image stabilization

[@nonojo3196]

Steven Means no, the lens don't have Image stabilization.

[@KarlMaxFernandes]

Hey mah, what you hide about this lens with your finger :)

[@christopherfrost]

+Karl Max Fernandes The sticker from the lens hire company :-)

[@KarlMaxFernandes]

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ok, sorry

[@CaptainVapes]

Gaskets are so easy to make, I still don't know why people don't use some common sense and buy a gasket from b&q,

[@mjrod1985]

Is this your real voice? Sounds robotic

[@Guio95]

I find it quite useless... don't see the point in investing money on a lens of this type