70-200/2.8 IS L vs. 80-200/2.8 L : probable FUD from salesman, but I need confirmation

[jean_marc_liotier]

I was wandering in a very reputed Canon shop I shall not name and one

of the salespeople talked to me about how great is the "designed for

digital" 70-200/2.8 IS L compared to the "old school" 80-200/2.8 L I

cherish so much. He specifically described how the 80-200/2.8 L is

designed to take into account the not quite perfectly plane surface of

film whereas the 70-200/2.8 IS L is designed for the perfectly plane

surface of the digital sensors. My gut feeling is that this is pure

bullshit, but since I still grant the salespeople at this shop some

credibility I would like confirmation from fellow Photo.net people...

[danny_lee2]

dunno, but pop photo did once have an article about how canon's new lenses are coated to miminize digital sensors reflections or something. being said, that 80-200 is rather old and perhaps that may be a part of the puzzle.

[isaac sibson]

The 80-200 F2.8L has a reputation for being sharper than either of the 70-200 F2.8s. On the pressure plate film should be completely flat, so the line of reasoning is not good.

 

What he might have meant is a reference to the microlensing of a digital sensor, which works best with light coming in at a normal to the sensor plane, rather than at an angle. The 70-200's more recessed rear element will improve this relative to the flush rear element of the 80-200, but it exists in order to provide teleconverter compatibility and existed on the original 70-200 F2.8L which came out long before anyone was thinking about designing lenses around digital sensors.

[mark u]

The chief hazard with the 80-200 is that Canon no longer has a full range of spare parts available for the lens, so if it needs repair that might not be possible. The chief hazard with the 70-200 IS is that it is quite widely reported as causing intermittent lockups on more recent Canon bodies. Whilst the re-design allows the later lens to use TCs, I don't think it was motivated by the angle of incidence on the sensor/film - that is a problem that is important for wide angle lenses on digital sensors, and is completely irrelevant for medium telephoto lengths and longer. The flat field thing also sounds like a big red herring - even if there was the slightest element of truth to it, it would only be relevant to those shooting full frame digital. It's also worth remembering that the 70-200 lenses were designed when film was still completely dominant as the method of capture. You've been FUD'd!

[jean_marc_liotier]

Thank you for your answers that confirmed my opinion. Although I have come to expect anything from salespeople, trying such tactics on customers is much lower than I thought possible in reputable shops. Honest advice is the last thing that keeps me going to specialist shops from time to time instead of shopping online. Pretty stupid of them to ruin their reputation on useless scare tactics.

[joe_r1]

Your gut feeling is correct.

[jim_larson1]

<i>The chief hazard with the 70-200 IS is that it is quite widely reported as causing intermittent lockups on more recent Canon bodies. </i><p>

Where?<p>

I thought the 70-200/2.8L IS predates digital cameras? I thought it was designed for top end film cameras?

<p>

Regardless, the 70-200/2.8L-IS is reported to be one of the best canon lenses made, and is highly recommended for both film and digital.

[marcin harla]

<i>He specifically described how the 80-200/2.8 L is designed to take into account the not quite perfectly plane surface of film whereas the 70-200/2.8 IS L is designed for the perfectly plane surface of the digital sensors.</i>

 

<p>I would have laughed in his face and left. <br>70-200 f/2.8IS may be a better lens, but claiming that <b>"80-200 is designed to take into account the not quite perfectly plane surface of film"</b> is like stating that we can exceed the speed limit by 10mph since speedometers are not accurate. Try to explain that to a cop ;-)

[mark u]

Jim - right here on photonet, not to mention extensive threads on DPreview and Robgalbraith. Here's a recent photonet thread which references Robgalbraith:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AR04

 

and here's one from DPReview:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=9353648