sammm Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Has something happened to this lens? I cannot seem to find it on the major on-line retailer web sites, and am wondering if it has been discontinued. It still appears on the K-M site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammm Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 Sorry, I meant 80-200! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
florisjol Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Hi Sam, The 80-200 is being replaced by the 70-200/2.8 ssm. Maybe some shops still have some in stock, but probably not for long, since the old one is about 600 euro less expensive than the new one. greetings Floris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammm Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 Thanks! This now raises a new issue for me - if I'm going to spend $1800 on lenses, does it make more sense to get the 85/1.4 and the 200/2.8 or just the 70-200? I'm going to ponder this, but any thoughts are always appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_fallon1 Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Regarding your last post ... I currently own an older 200/2.8 (not the "HS" version), also the 135/2.8 and 100/1.8 macro in the same range covered by a 70/80-200. I use the 200 with a 1.4X to get (about) 300, and from there, I have the 400 (which can also be used with the 1.4X). I've been seriously thinking about replacing the 100, 135 and 200 with a zoom. (I also have the 200/4 macro and haven't used the 100 for macro work since getting the 200). I'm using the 7D now, and 100mm up is too long for portraits & candids (for me anyway) so I'll be doing that with a shorter lens. I'd like to change lenses less frequently, both for convenience and avoiding dust on the sensor. And mostly, I want to preserve all 6MP and avoid cropping to get the composition I want, and will really appreciate the zoom lens. The Maxxum 80-200/2.8 sounds nice enough (I'd have to buy used since I haven't seen them anywhere) but doesn't work with the APO TC, so I'd have to use it with a 3rd party TC that won't be matched to it. The 70-200 would be great, but it's expensive and I'd have to upgrade my TC to the new (US$500) SSM TC, too. One nice thing about the SSM lens is the minimum focus distance. You can get reasonable magnification with this lens (particularly with the TC) even if not at macro levels. I'm seriously considering either the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX (and matched 1.4X) or the 100-300/4 (which would require me to spend another $200 on an 82mm polarizer ...) The 85 & 200 are great lenses; I haven't used the 85, but am familiar with its reputation. The f/1.4 lens gives you a bright VF image but very narrow DOF ... nice to have the speed when you need it, but I try to shoot my 50/1.4 at f/2 or slower most of the time and would have settled for the f/1.7 except for the f/1.4's 55mm filter thread and deep bayonet lens shade. I had the 100-300 APO before "upgrading" to the 200 & 1.4X (figuring I already had the 100mm macro, so I had the range covered) ... but I miss the in-between focal lengths. - Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcap Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 TOUGH QUESTION! Depends a lot on what you shoot. And if you are going to be using a digital body (dust and the CCD during those lens changes) I'm a big prime fan, but when I moved to the 7D I went for a couple of highish end zooms (not G though!). You could get the primes, but get them used. And then get a new Sigma 70-200/2.8 as a travel/dusty places lens!? Or get the 85/1.4 & 135/2.8 and the Sig 70-200/2.8 Tough one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammm Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 I'm sticking with the 7 for now and not adding digital. I'm just old fashioned, I guess. I have the 135/2.8 and it's a great lens. I hadn't considered throwing the Sigma in as a possibility, I'll have to look that one up. My photos tend to include a lot of portraits, a little bit of landscape and nature, and so the 85 has always been appealing by reputation for the portraits, but I'd also like a strong longer lens. Thanks for all the thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_harding Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 It has gotten very hard to find the 80-200/2.8/ I am not sure any store carries it in any longer. The ones going on eBay average about $1,000 due to the scarcity of the 80-200/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8. I really like the lens. Great optics. Solid construction. The only negatives I would point out are the tripod collar is not detachable and it is not IF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_derosier Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Ya gotta keep a watch post on EBAY, where these lenses occasionally show up. I just purchased one for $450 ... it was externally 'challenged', but optically excellent. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now