80-200

[alex_surrey1]

Is this lens worth buying do to the price of the 70-200 f2.8 or am I better off buying a 70-200 f4 ?

[John Crowe]

The 80-200/2.8 L is one that I consider for the price too, and it's reported unsurpassed image quality for this zoom range, but I still feel that they are overpriced at the going rate of $550-650 USD. From time to time the 70-200/2.8 L with it's better USM, ability to take converters, and more easily found parts, can be found for only $150-200 more.

 

 

The choice between the f2.8 and f4 version depends on several things. Do you use primarily film or digital, and do you shoot mostly in sunlit situations? If you use film and want to shoot with 50 ISO film on a regular basis then you might prefer the f2.8. With digital or primarily 100 ISO film for broad daylight use then f4 is plenty.

 

 

Do you want to hike/walkaround with this lens? While not all that heavy as far as high performance telephoto lenses go, it is not likely something you want to walk very far with or continually use handheld for extended periods of time.

 

 

I am considering all these lenses plus a few others since my primary 200mm lens is an extremely heavy f2 lens that weighs about twice as much as the 80-200/2.8. Good luck.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>One other thing to keep in mind about old lenses is that Canon no longer has parts for some of them, and I'm pretty sure the 80-200/2.8L is one of those. So if it breaks, you'll either have to buy another one to replace it, or buy another broken one that's broken in a different way and can be cannibalized.</p>

 

<p>See the standard photo.net reviews of the 80-200 and 70-200 for some comments on these lenses.</p>

[chris_thomson]

I have this lens. Picked it up used a couple years ago for 500.00 bucks. I have no complaints to report. It is an absolute star performer for the price. With the money I saved a picked up a used 70-300 DO IS for 700.00 bucks. While the quality doesn't quite measure up to the 80-200 its my first choice when I'm looking for a lightweight walkaround telephoto. I'd say I'm more than pleased with both.

 

Got both on the big auction site, that's the scary part. If your patient and careful you can usually do well. My guess is that even if the 80-200 did fall apart you could still get 2-3 hundred for it in non working condition. When my old 28-80 2.8-4 L died it fetched 250.

 

If my 80-200 dies I wouldn't hesitate to buy another. It's that good.

 

Chris

[chris_thomson]

Here's a 100% crop, shot handheld with a 20D, 800 ISO, f4 at 1/600th. No post processing. I hope to get a 5d next year to see how it does on fullframe digital but I've used it extensively with my EOS 1N with great results.

[chris_thomson]

And another. Same settings.

[yakim_peled1]

"Worth" is a subjective term and mean different things to different people. For example: "Is it worth spending three times as much for a BMW then a Toyota?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ethan_adler]

I have a 5D and 80-200 and they are an excellent pair. When I go to the zoo, I would prefer a lens that focused a little faster. That said, it is still pretty fast. The purple fringe sometimes bothers my outdoor shots, but it is excellent for people. Really sharp.

[tom_lai]

The f2.8 weight twice as f4. My wife is a beginner and weight only about 100 lbs. f2.8 + 30D is too heavy for her. No question that f2.8 is better than f4. But with the hand shaking we need the IS too.

 

So I am still waiting for Canon to make a Lens 70-200 f2.8 with DO technology. It will weight much less.