what are the differences between these two lenses aside from the built in hood (mk1) and the bayonet hood (mk2)? are they optically the same (physically and performace wise)? AF motors? thanks in advance...

-- howard shen (hshen@lsm.org), April 29, 2000

Answers

I don't have one of these, but I did see a discussion about them on Photo.net, I believe. The consensus was that while there is some minor cosmetic differences they are optically and mechanically the same, except for the lens hood. Some preferring the built in one for convenience and others preferring the removable hood because it is deeper and does a better job.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), April 29, 2000.

Howard: I've previously owned and loved the 200/2.8L (mk 1), but eventually traded it for the 70-200/2.8L. Although I've never had the pleasure to use the 200/2.8L mk 2, I would opt for this newer lens simply based on the lens hood issue. The mk1's lens hood is very shallow (although I must admit that I personally never encountered any flare with this lens, and I used it extensively...), but more importantly, the mk 1's hood can't be LOCKED in the extended position by rotating it (unlike, for example, the 300/4L or 400/5.6L). Therefore, if this older lens is dropped front-first, the extended hood offers little if any mechanical buffer for the lens. In addition, the shallow hood offers much less protection against, for example, errant twigs, raindrops, snowflakes, and so on. I have played with the newer, mk 2 lens at a local dealer, and found it's hood to be quite substantial and very similar to the 70-200/2.8L's hood--it is a detachable/reversible hood that is quite deep and wide, but it's width also increases the overall width of the lens when the hood is in the reverse position for storage.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), April 29, 2000.

I've owned the 200 2.8L MKI for about 5 years. It's my favorite walk around lens: well balanced on my A2 with vertical grip, very sharp and contrasty, fast focus and a really large, easy to grip manual focus ring. I have broken several cameras and lenses--motorcycle crash, falls on a trail, etc.--and have found that my goodies last longer in a shoulder bag. Unfortunately, telephoto hoods tend to be too large to leave on while in the camera bag, so I leave 'um off (yeah, you can reverse 'um but by the time you do that the shot may be gone. However, the built-in hoods of my 200/2.8L & 300/4L are always there and thus get used every time.

-- puppyface (puppyface@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

Another difference may be that the Mk II includes a tripod mount, and the Mk I doesn't. I have a used mk I which someone traded in on a 70-200/2.8 (Kurt?). When I asked about a tripod mount for it, the salesman rumaged around in a drawer, pulled out a brand new one in a blister pack, and gave it to me, no charge. I understand the new ones can cost U$85. I'm very happy with the performance of the lens, very sharp, and no flare, except when I've used it with a cheap Tamron tele-converter. I almost always use it on a monopod, so the tripod mount is indispensible. If you're pricing the two versions, be sure to include a mount for the Mk I.

-- Geoff Doane (geoff_doane@cbc.ca), May 12, 2000.

Geoff, you got lucky; the tripod collar is not standard for either version of the EF200/2.8L. They both use the same model collar as the EF80-200/2.8L, EF300/4.0L (non-IS), and EF400/5.6L (which all are supplied with the collar).

-- Dave Herzstein (dherzstein@juno.com), May 12, 2000.

For a lens the size of 200/2.8 or Nikon 180/2.8, a tripot collar is not at all necesary, because a pro or semi-pro body is about the same or heavy weight, it's better to put the tripot/monopot under the camera, better balanced and easier to switch lenses.

-- George (netphoto@home.com), July 14, 2000.