How much better is the FDn 200/2.8 IF than the non IF lens?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Last year I finally purchased the 80-200/4.0 L but sometimes in low light situations I find myself wishing for another stop or two. What differences would I see between the 2 FDn models? Is one optically superior to the other wide open? Are they about the same once you get to f/4 or smaller apertures?</p>

[Bill C1664885404]

<p>

"...I finally purchased the 80-200/4.0 L but sometimes in low light situations I find myself wishing for another stop..."

</p>

<p>Just an FYI...I recently sold my like new FDn 200/2.8 IF lens...after I got my FDn 80-200/4.0-L lens, because of its superior IQ (and zoom utility) I basically keep it on one NEX-7, and a FDn 300/4.0-L on the other.</p>

<p>The 200/2.8 was just sitting unused because if I needed another stop of light on the 80-200/4.0-L (or 300mm) I just bumped the ISO from 100 to 200 or 400, which is easy to do on the NEX-7 without getting a lot of noise...PLUS I kept the same DOF with the 4.0 setting vs. a shallower DOF at 2.8.</p>

<p>So the 200/2.8 just wasn't being used after getting the 80-200/4.0-L. Sold it and put those funds towards a FDn 200/4.0 MACRO lens and use it quite a bit for Macro work.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I can't speak to which is better. However I owned the IF version for a couple of years, and probably ended up shooting all of three rolls of film with it. Its IQ seemed good, but for its size I much preferred the 80-200L, which I think was a much higher quality and more versatile lens. Sorry I eventually sold mine.</p>

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>I have had 2 IF versions and both were really nice. I still have one as I use it for low light fast sports like hockey, rodeo (when the sun dies) and for portraits it is just too sweet.<br />I do have a 70-210 F4 for its flexibility so eventually I plan to find that 80-200 F4L gem that so many people love. I dont see myself selling the 200mm even after that though.</p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I, too, sold my 200/2.8 prime and kept my beloved 80-200/4 L zoom. The prime is only a single stop faster, has inferior IQ, and is much less versatile. So unless you <em>really</em> need a 200mm prime that you'll always shoot wide open, I wouldn't bother getting one. It would likely languish on the shelf as you're using your L zoom.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>This subject has come up many times. I will eventually get the 80-200/4L just to say I don't use it. I have the non-IF 200/2.8 and it is an excellent lens. The fact that a lens has internal focusing does not automaticaly make it better than a non-IF lens of the same focal length and speed. I have a 300/4.5 Minolta MD lens which is an IF model as well as an older 300/4.5 MC Rokkor X. Both are good lenses. The IF lens is much smaller and lighter but probably not as good with a teleconverter and not nearly as sturdy as the non-IF MC model. I admit that I prefer shooting with prime lenses as a general rule. Do I feel I am missing something when I use an 85/1.8 New FD or 100/2.8 FD SSC or 200/4 FD SSC or 200/2.8 non-IF New FD instead of an 80-200/4L? No I don't. I am still using FD lenses with film cameras and the extra speed of the 200/2.8 (either model) is very useful for hand held shooting. It makes focusing easier too. I can use older lenses on my Pentax K-x DSLR with both focus confirmation and the built-in IS. With an adapter I can mount a 200/3 Vivitar Series lens which is in M42 mount. I lose auto diaphragm operation but if I really need the speed I will be shooting wide open anyway. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have had all three. The image quality of the 200/2.8 IF is identical to the non-IF. I used the non-IF for over ten years and did not notice the focus throw until I got the IF which is of course a pleasure to use.</p>

<p>The 80-200/4 L is vastly superior the 200/2.8 lenses. The only reason I kept the 200/2.8 longer was because I could use it with the FD-EOS 1.26x converter. I agree totally with simply changing to one stop higher ISO when absolutely necessary.</p>

<p>All the years I used the 200/2.8 I thought it was the cats meow because it totally out performed the third party zoom that I had. It wasn't until I used the 80-200/4 L and 400/4.5 that I realized just how poor it was.</p>