200 2.8L mark I a good buy?

[jmoody]

As with every other Canon user, I'm tragically stuck in the "what lens should I

get that won't put my marriage at risk, but will give me some extra reach, at

least 200mm?"

 

Have been stuck mostly between the 70-200 (f4 IS or non IS), and the 70-300 IS

(though "quality" has me nervous). I'd largely ignored the 200 2.8L, as I'm a

BIG zoom fan, but just saw one advertised for a little under $400 used (duh).

 

So, the question is... what should I be wary of? The lens would more than

likely be upwards of 15 years old (1991 productions?)... would it be "sealed"?

Does that exclude fungus as a deal-breaker for the most part? Should I be

worried about the USM motor going south (I've read about similar probs. with

the 80-200 having a discontinued motor ie: not serviceable). Does the price

sound about right?

 

I like the idea of the 2.8. I like the price (I think). And, I like that it's

compatible with the telextenders... Would love to get the 70-200 4 IS, but

with that kind of a $$ difference? Just nervous as this would be a person-to-

person transaction & I probably wouldn't get much of a chance to REALLY test it

out for probs until it's way too late.

Thnx in advance

[bobatkins]

Fungus is propably the main issue if the lens hasn't been properly stored. It's a tough lens so unless the optics are damaged it will probably be fine.

 

I bought a 300/4L in 1992 and it's just as good today as when I first got it.

 

A 200/2.8 I in good shape for under $400 is a good buy in my book. It could fail I guess, but the current 200/2.8 II is identical except for the lens hood, so I'd assume it could be repaired (though it might cost at least 1/2 as much to repair it as you paid for it).

[jmoody]

Thanks Bob. That largely puts my mind at ease (all brown nosing aside, can't think of a better source for a response to my doubts!). Will have to see the actual unit and go from there I guess. Anything else to watch for? (have sold used lenses, but never purchased any, and even at "brand new", have heard horror stories about "bad copies" and the like)

[bobatkins]

Put it on a camera (preferably digital for rapid access to results) and shoot with it. Make sure it focuses properly and that the images are sharp.

 

The main issue with older lenses is how they have been treated. If they've been dropped for example, elements could have been knocked out of alignment or even cracked.

 

I've bought a bunch of used EOS lenses and so far I've had no problems.

 

I'd expect to see quite a bit of dust inside the lens, but apart from cosmetic appearance, dust really doesn't cause any significant problems, and you'll see it even in new lenses. Fungus is another matter as it will require a complete strip down of the lens, even if it hasn't damaged the elements. At worst it might require replacement of elements. "Filament" like threads inside the lens would drop its value to under $100 in my book. I've seen 5 year old lenses with fungus and I've seen 35+ year old lenses with none. It all depends where and how the lens was stored.

[davidhay]

I bought a S/H 200mm F2.8 Mk1 from a professional photographer who had given it stick for a few years. A lot of black paint was missing but it had a filter on it from new, and the front element was unmarked. The only problem you might find is the manual focus mechanism wears after a lot of use, the ring feels slack and can be turned past infinity. This has no effect on actual focussing. It just feels a bit sloppy.

 

The image quality is great.

[aaronp]

If you really like zooms, you should consider the old 80-200 f/2.8L; I picked one up at Adorama's used department for under $500 a few months ago, and it has treated me well. I've seen several others there for the same price, so if you keep a close eye on their stock, and bide your time, I think you could get one.

[jmoody]

I like the idea Aaron, but have only seen them locally for closer to $700 (?) (going off memory). Also, though I like the idea of black color vs. white color, would probably lean more towards the newer 70-200 f4 for the $$'s . 2.8 is not a "must" for me as I don't shoot weddings or anything, but I like the idea of having it for when/if needed. Thanks for the thoughtt though, I'll check around for $$ on that one

[jmoody]

by the way... anyone know why it's called the "magic drainpipe"? (not a nickname that inspires much confidence, that's for sure :-)

[eosdoc]

You have been spending too much time on <a target=loser href=

http://dpreview.com>DPR</a>.<P>

<b>Magic drainpipe</b> was the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L<P>

The <a target=loser href=

http://eosdoc.com/manuals?q=200f2.8L

>EF 200mm f/2.8L USM</a> is the <b>Prime-Pipe</b><P>

See: <a target=loser href=

http://tinyurl.com/y4qalq

>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7336679</a>

[jmoody]

well, whatever it is, hope it works well on my plastic maggot :-)

[tjalf]

Jeff,

 

A 200 2.8L mark I for under $400,- seems like a very good buy to me. I recently bought one for EUR 475 which I considered a fair price. Mine had always been handled very carefully and looked as new. Can't recommend this lens enough, it's quite small, black!, very fast autofocus and the image quality really blows me away. Just a few comments from a very happy user.

 

Cheers, Tjalf

[lester_wareham]

I have a 200mm 2.8L II and it is extremely sharp, very low CA and excellent flare resistance and takes the 1.4X teleconverter without noticing and the 2X TC very well although the AF will slow up.

 

I understand the only difference between the Mk I and II is the hood which I think was a slide out hood on the MK I, the MK II has quite a big bayonet type hood.

 

The lens is very compact and light, about the same weight as the 70-200 f4L but shorter and so well balanced. Very usable handheld although a monopod or tripod always improves sharpness.

 

I cover the 70-200 ranges with this lens and the 100mm f2.8 macro rather than zooms, the main reason being the f2.8 zooms are too big and heavy. The other reason is my FD experience of this zoom range is that f4 is too slow and one wants to be at the long end most of the time anyway.

 

The existence of the 70-200 f4L IS does change the dynamics somewhat depending on what you shoot, the new zoom probably being ideal for travel. However the 200 prime is great for wildlife and longer reach landscape and I understand from other sport/action shots.

 

I normally always carry the 200 prime with me as part of my normal load even when shooting landscape, sometimes you want a longer lens for that plus with the TCs I have emergency cover of 280 & 400mm when I have not lugged my 300 f4L IS along.

[jmoody]

much ado about nothing...

 

The guy still hasn't e-mailed me back and the add no longer appears where I first saw it so... looks like either it was already snapped up, or he changed his mind (my luck, he's a p.net member & realized he had room to raise the price after reading this post! Oh well, thanks to all for your help. As I mentioned, I'm mainly a 'zoom' guy, but if I see this again at or near this price, I'll probably jump on it.)