Canon 200mm 2.8 can it be beat?

[matt-c]

I was just wondering pound for pound can this lens be beat for wide field with a dslr?

The more I think about upgrading the more I can't seem to find anything that is as fast as this lens in this price range. Especially after finding out it can be ran wide open!!

Can you suggest anything in the 200-400mm range as an upgrade?  

 

 

 

[Alien 13]

The Canon 70-200 f4 L gets close and is much cheaper.

Alan

[trev27]

Well that's one of the only truly bargain L lenses available. Everything with a wide aperture above that focal length is far more expensive. As Alan mentioned, the 70-200 F4 L is fantastic - great for Astro, though it is F4. The F2.8 II as well, but it's a heavy beast and far more expensive. I suspect that in the 300+ range one of the small aperture refractors would be a better match. In particular the Borg 60, 67, 71 and 77 come to mind and can range from 245mm up to 430mm with focal ratios from F3.8 upwards. Not cheap though.

My workhorse for that stuff was a 70-200 F4 for a long time. Have a 135mm F2 now but haven't tried any astro with it yet. Must try it on the Astrotrac once our skies darken again.

Trev

[wxsatuser]

2 hours ago, matt-c said:

I was just wondering pound for pound can this lens be beat for wide field with a dslr?

The more I think about upgrading the more I can't seem to find anything that is as fast as this lens in this price range. Especially after finding out it can be ran wide open!!

Can you suggest anything in the 200-400mm range as an upgrade?  

 

 

 

It can just about be run wide open, there is some slight abberation on corner stars, in both mine.
I mainly run at f4 but have run at f2.8 and cropped out the corners, not much is lost.
Lenses do vary but if you get a good one, your laughing.

I have been trying the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II but mine is not as good as the 200mm so my next effort
is going to be back with the Borg 67FL f3.8 but with a slight modification as it's pretty naff around the edges.

[matt-c]

Thanks for the replies I've really considered the Borg stuff but it's pretty pricey and reviews seem a little sparse.

Maybe I'll win the lottery and get an epsilon 

 

 

[wxsatuser]

I bought my 67FL when FLO had a price reduction, it's a smashing little scope but........
with a APS-C dslr the 67FL set does have servere vignetting with 'flying bird' stars around the corners.

It would'nt come to focus as supplied because the set had a 28mm extension missing, which FLO
quickly sorted, focusing was fine after fitting the extension.

The quality of Borg is very good indeed, when the box of bits turn up the first thought is how flimsy it looks
but the engineering is first class and in the 67FL there is the very nice Canon flourite objective.

IMO
If the Borgs are out of your price comfort the Canon 200mm, which can be found for less than 400, is a bargain.

[ollypenrice]

I ran a 200L prime with a CCD for a while and liked it very much. The problem was the coarse pixel scale. The Artist Formerly Known As Psychobilly  sent me some astro shots taken with the lens on a DSLR wide open. They were excellent. The secret is to focus at the intersection of the 1/3 lines, he said. 

Olly

[matt-c]

Aghhh sorry to resurrect this but I just can't decide between this lens, William optics 66mm or the 130pds.

Obviously the 200mm is more portable than the 130pds but the later is cheaper and will get me abit closer.

The William optics I can't help it I just love it and constantly try to justify it.

[zicklurky]

Edit: Whoops I think I replied to the wrong thread.

[RikM]

I use a 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II  with a 7D mkII and it's a killer combo. Focusing on the 1/3rd points is the secret to optimum star shapes across the field. I bought the lens for indoor sports photography, not astro use and it isn't cheap. The 200 f/2.8L prime should be very close if not better. I am not aware of anything 200mm that is as fast and as good for the money. 

[r3bel]

Has anyone any experience how big the differnence between the 2.8 IS Mk.1 and Mk.2 is? I am thinking about getting the mk. 1 version because it is quite a lot cheaper.

[RikM]

Not the 200mm prime but I have used the mkI and mkII 70-200 f/2.8 zooms and there is a bit of a difference but not that much. 

[r3bel]

I meant the 70-200 2.8 so thanks for the reply. Any chance that you have some example pictures taken with each of the two versions?

[RichLD]

Although this falls outside of your fl spec, I love my old manual focus Nikkor Ed180 f2.8 married to a QHY9 for widefield. I do have to stop it down to f5.6 to get the coma down (especially when doing mosaics) but it's sharp as wide open if you prepared to crop a little - it's optical performance challenges my Canon 135L f2.

You can pick one up for around £150 on a popular auction site with good, clean optics, although it might be not the prettiest cosmetically .

Built like a tank too.

[Uranium235]

While not a 200mm, the Rokinon/Samyang 135mm prime f2 is quite special. Reasonably priced too!

I was quite impressed with this image that popped up recently: