75-200 f/4,5 Vs. 80-200 f/4 . Who win?

[simus]

Hi,

 

Recently, I have bought a 75-200 4,5 that I found wonderful.

I wonder if 80-200 4 is even better.

Except the 1/2 stop and the focal lenght are there other differences beetween

the twos ?

 

Regards,

 

Antonio

[paulmoore]

is there a full moon?

[doug herr]

The 80-200 f/4 is a much better lens in several respects. I found the 75-200 has excellent flare control, and generally equal to the best zooms from the 1980s, but the 80-200 f/4 has benefitted from a newer optical design; I have no hesition using the 80-200 at full aperture, while I felt it was best to stop the 75-200 down to f/5.6 or f/8 for best image quality. The 80-200 also shows much better b*keh throughout the zoom range while the 75-200 at least at the shorter lenghts has rather harsh foreground b*keh.

<P>

There are also several mechanical differences between the lenses:<BR>

) the 80-200's construction is much more solid<BR>

) the 80-200's front element doesn't rotate when you focus (handy when using a polarizing filter)<BR>

) the 80-200's hood can be retracted at any focal length to add/remove/rotate filters<BR>

) the 80-200 can use a rotating tripod collar such as the Leica STA-1 or the Burzynski collar<BR>

) one advantage for the 75-200: it can use the ELPRO close-up lenses.

<P>

In summary, I'm completely delighted with the 80-200 f/4.

[charlie_chan2]

I second Doug's comments. The current 80-200/4 vario-elmar is one of the bargains (if there

is such a thing in Leicaland) in the R series lenses. One of the local UK leica dealers (who is

also a pro photographer) sold his 70-180/2.8 and uses an 80-200/4 instead.

 

REgards

 

Charlie Chan

[SCL]

Never tried the 75-200, but the 80-200 is an incredible lens...I never really fully appreciated zooms (although I've owned a number of Canon, Nikon & Tamrons over the years) until I got this lens. Everything works smoothly, accurately, and the optics wide open are razor sharp, IMHO.

[joseph_barbano]

I've used the 75-200 for over twenty years and it has performed very well. Periodically over the years I would consider replacing it until I spoke with Jim Lager, who was working at Tamarkin's at the time, somehwere in the late 1990's. He told me that he used the 75-200 and has for years and was very pleased with it. Since then I never considered replacing the lens. I'm sure if/when it breaks, I'll repalce it with the 80-200, but for now it's fine. For today's prices, it's probably a steal; can be had for under $500 easily.

 

Attached is a photo I took in Buenos Aires in 1992 on k64. It's a streetside fashion show. Excuse the scan.<div></div>

[joseph_barbano]

Here's another 75-200 of the Grand Canal taken in 2004. Provia 100 I think.<div></div>

[joseph_barbano]

Fianlly, here's one taken on safari in Kenya. K200, I think.<div></div>

[simus]

Thank you very much to you all.

I have seen some on Ebay and I think to try it.

As soon as I have it I'll do some test against the 75-200.

 

Antonio