EF 80-200/2.8 L vs. EF 200/2.8 L

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have an EF 80-200/2.8 L, and have an opportunity to get an EF 200/2.8 L. I'm wondering whether anyone with experience with both of these lenses would care to comment on how the IQ of the prime compares to that of the zoom at 200mm. Is the prime significantly better, or are they very close? I consider the zoom to be outstanding.</p>

[savagesax]

I'm a bit confused. Has Canon come out with a new 80-200 2.8? Perhaps you mean 70-200.

 

Without this information the general answer is primes are almost always better than zooms. Not only is the image quality better, but primes are lighter weight.

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Bob, there was a (black) EF 80~200/2.8L, introduced in September 1989, superseded by the (white) EF 70~200/2.8L USM in March 1995 (see Canon Museum). Mark may well still be using the 80~200/2.8. It had a reputation as a fine lens, known by some users as the "magic drainpipe". However, it did not have USM, and hence no full-time manual focus; it did not take Extenders; and it may well now be impossible to find spare parts. So if you've got one and it's working, and you aren't bothered about using Extenders, that's great, but it would need to be at a keen price to make it a sensible purchase now. Having said all that, I can't answer Mark's original question!</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I have no comment on magic drainpipe IQ vs the 200 2.8L. I can say the 200 2.8L is one of the finest lenses I have owned, and I've owned it since 1995. It would be pretty difficult to match let alone beat. Oddly I did own a used magic drainpipe in the early 90s but only shot a few rolls of chromes before selling it. Was too dad burn heavy. I still have a little piece of that old bazooka: the drainpipe's Black Tripod Ring A fits the 200 2.8L and still does it's duty when I use a tripod.</p>

[jean_marc_liotier]

<p>The EF 80-200/2.8L is compatible with the Kenko extenders. The AF is a bit slow compared to the EF 70-200/2.8L, but apart from that it is a wonderful lens. The only reason that I don't still use it is that I mistreated it and then found that there are no more spare parts for it on the market. I had to buy the EF 70-200/2.8L to replace it. I still have the EF 80-200/2.8L on a shelf - the zoom mecanism is broken, but the optics are in perfect condition. Contact me if you need it for spare parts !</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Hi Mark,<br>

No need to get it at all. Apart from the obvious weight/size the IQ between them is not enough to need them both, I certainly wouldn't say "significantly beter".</p>

<p>But don't forget to use those FD cameras :-). Take care, Scott.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Scott, it's great to see that you're still active here on photo.net.</p>

<p>No, I certainly won't forget my FD gear. In fact, it was my experience with FD lenses that prompted my question here about the EF prime vs. zoom. To wit, the FD 80-200/4 L delivers better IQ (at 200mm) than does the FD 200/2.8, and I thought something similar might be the case with the two EF lenses in question.</p>

<p>And yes, guys, it is indeed the older EF 80-200/2.8 L, the "Magic Drainpipe," that I have.</p>

[peter_langfelder]

<p>Unfortunately there isn't much on the web in terms of the old 80-200/2.8L, but the newer 70-200/2.8L at 200 and the 200/2.8L appear to be similar in performance. I'd be surprised if the 80-200/2.8L was better. As for the FD system, the old 200/2.8 was not an L lens and didn't have the 2 UD elements that EF 200/2.8 has, so the EF 200/2.8 should be markedly better.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Perhaps I should ask, then, how much better the EF 200/2.8 L prime is than the 70-200/2.8 L zoom.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Mark<br>

I shoot the 70-200 F2.8 (non-IS) on the 5DII (and film bodies) and i am very impressed with the IQ. It is better than the old FD80-200 F4 L at F4. I tested the EOS 200 F2.8L at a store - outside shots but just around the store. It is probably marginally better but not by much. If I get chance later today I will shoot some shots with the 80-200 F4L at 200, my FD 200 F2.8L (at F4 and f2.8) and the EOS 70-200 F2.8 L (at F2.8 and F4). The FD lenses will be on a G1 body. I will post the sections of corner and center crops and you can take a look and see if the EOS zoom is good enough - I am very happy with mine and bought the non-IS over the IS as the 70-200 F2.8 L IS I tested was not as sharp as the non-IS lens. I will have to just post sections of the image as I am not very good at downsizing images (they look terrible when I do it). Would you prefer to see the images unsharpened or sharpened?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Here are some quick comparissons - remember the G1 is only a 12MP sensor so the enlargements are almost 2x the 5DII enlargements. My FD200 F2.8 is very close to the 80-200 F4L but shows more CA. I actually also tried the old FD300 F2.8L - essentially a 600mm lens on the G1 and it was the best of the three FD lenses I tried.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>5D2 at F4</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Old FD lens on G1 - at this size enlargement it is beginning to show the smaller sensor size</p>

[thomas_abbott1]

<p>I've owned the 80-200L and 200L simultaneously. The tripod ring fit both, which was convenient. OP's question is tough because strictly IQ-wise, there may not be much difference. I think the biggest difference being in the out of focus portions of the exposure (e.g., different bokeh). The USM on the prime is great though. The 200L is one of the fastest and quietest focusing lenses I've owned. It's also ergonomically nicer because of its weight and shorter barrel.</p>