EOS 70-200 compared to 80-200 f/2.8 models

[j_robinson2]

Am looking at the possibility of getting one of these lenses. Is the

auto focus faster and more accurate with the newer 70-200 models

compared to the older 80-200? Any real handling differences (other

than IS) and any differences in sharpness or other performance? I

don't mind not having the extra 10mm at the low end if the 80-200

lens is just as good in most areas.

[jeffcallen]

The 80-200 is not USM, therefore it focusses slower and makes more noise. It also has a very different feel, and I don't believe there is a tripod mount for it, or if there is, it isn't as nice as the one for the 70-200. Yes, the newer lenses AF is faster, and sometimes more accurate, though it's been a while since I used the 80-200. The 70-200 IS lens is a gem, rent one before you buy. The 80-200 F4 is nice, and if you can stand the F stop, about the same price as used 80-200's. If you're looking for a used 80-200, make sure it hasn't sucked in too much dust. Photodo.com rates both lenses optically at 4.1 or 4.2.

[stephen sullivan]

Impressions that I remember is when I purchased the EF 70~200 2.8L, "Faster Focus, More Acurate Focus and the zoom mechanism is smoother."

 

I never did a side by side comparison, but both lenses are incrdible.

[cliff_henry]

J,

 

I owned a 80-200 2.8L for about ten years and would still be using it if it hadn't been stolen about three years ago. Since then, I own the std. 70-200 2.8L.

 

I think you are getting some misinformation here. There should be no difference in focus accurate. The focus is determined by the body not the lens.

 

As far as focus speed, the 80-200 does not have an USM motor and on paper the 70-200 should focus faster, albeit only a very little difference. I never found the 80-200 to focus slow or to be noisy. My 80-200 was purchased new and came with a tripod collar that is the equal of the one on the 70-200.

 

As far as the quality of the images the 80-200 produced, they were excellent. Many pros think it was sharper that the non-IS 70-200 2.8, which is sharper that the IS version.

 

The only problem now with the 80-200 is that Canon has said they have no parts for it and will no longer support repairs. If you find a clean one and the price is right, then it may serve you well for years. Then again, your investment in it go away at any time and it would become worthless.

 

Cliff

[robin_sibson1]

The 80~200/2.8L cannot be use with Canon Extenders, if I remember correctly. This is possible with both the non-IS and IS versions of the 70~200/2.8, although I seem to recall a footnote in a lens table to the effect that availability of AF points may be slightly limited, at least with the non-IS version.

[ken munn]

The Magic Drainpipe certainly does have a tripod collar, I'm looking at it now.

[jcolwell]

I agree with Cliff and Ken. I sold my 80-200 L last year to buy a 70-200 L IS, but I would not have sold it to get a 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS). I found that the 80-200L has very accurate focus on 20D and Elan 7 bodies, and it was plenty fast and quiet for me; although it is not as good as the 70-200 IS, and probably not as good as the 70-200L (non-IS), which I have not used. Also, the all-black colour of the 80-200L is an advantage in some situations, but it's still a big lens which will intimidate many people when they're in your sights. About the only negative comment I can make is that it is getting difficult to find spare parts for the 80-200. As noted, the 80-200L does not have FTM focus which is provided on USM lenses, but I don't often use it on the USM lenses that I do have - I find that if AF doesn't do what I want, then I usually switch to MF and "just do it". The inability to use a Canon Extender with the 80-200L is not a big problem: if you want to "go long" you should consider starting with a 300/4L IS or maybe 400/5.6L (depending on whether you will use a tripod). If you really want to use an Extender on the 80-200, you can look at the Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 series. If you're comparing used versions of the 80-200 and 70-200 lenses, then you can expect to save about $ 200 (US) for an 80-200 in the same condition as a 70-200 (see my <a href="http://www.jcolwell.ca/photography/Lens$db/index.htm">Lens price database, Lens$db</a> for more price info). OTOH, if you're in a position to buy a new 70-200/2.8 L lens, then it's hard to argue against the added benefit of a brand new L-series lens with a warranty. Good luck, Jim.

[jon_b]

i own both the 80-200 and the 70-200 IS...i also used to own the 70-200 4.0...all 3 of the lenses are terrific..that said the 80-200 is the best,the sharpest ....i use my 70-200 IS in low light but my first choice is the 80-200...in fact it is the best zoom ive ever used and comes damn close to being as good as my primes...