70-210 vs 80-200

[bob_mcbob]

I've recently decided that I'd like to get a zoom in this general

range, and there are only three FD lenses that fit in. The 70-210

f/4, 80-200 f/4, and 80-200 f/4L. The L is out of the question, since

it's beyond what I can afford right now. That leaves the other two,

of course. It seems to me that the 80-200 is likely the better lens

optically, but I can't be sure of that, so I'm looking for some

opinions. There's a few things I'm interested in. First and

foremost, the difference in optical quality between the two lenses.

I'm not looking for godly quality, but I know that older zoom lenses

sometimes aren't up to an acceptable level. Second, two touch zoom

vs. one touch zoom. I'm not entirely sure what the difference is (I

understand the general concept behind the two, but what are the

advantages of each, etc.). I'd imagine that one touch is probably

more convenient, but two touch more accurate for some applications.

And lastly, should I be considering third party lenses? I know there

are some good third party offerings for the FD mount in this range of

focal lengths, but that there are also some extremely *bad* ones. I

would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. I'm looking for a

lens in this range, that's no slower than f/4, and performs fairly

well optically. Please help me out here :). Thanks!

[peter_white2]

Unfortunately, I can't comment on the 80-200 f:4. I own the 70-210 and the 80-200 f:4L. The 70-210 f:4 is about the worst lens I have ever used. It flares horribly. Even an overcast sky will give you flare!

 

The 80-200 f:4L on the other hand is a terrific lens. My only objection is the slight distortion; it goes from slight barrel to slight pincusion as you zoom. But the flare is practically nonexistent, and it's very sharp.

 

PJW

[awahlster]

OK that set a tone. The 70-210 is a fine lens it does benifit from a hood so you should use one the two examples of this lens I have owned were quite nice optically. The 80-200mm f4.0 is a longer thinner feeling lens the two ring control eliminates the chance for zoom creep (where if pointed down the zoom zooms itself) weither it is slower is use you would have to decide. I have owned a couple of these as well and found them to be about the same from a finished image point of view when compared to the 70-210mm f4.0 MAYBE a tiny bit better but would be very hard to tell.

 

The third party lenses in this range that you can be secure in purchasing would be the 70-210 Vivitar f3.5 series 1 with the 67mm filter size. the Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 AT-X (bigger and faster but very high quality image) The Kiron 70-210 f3.5 with the 67mm filter size (same lens as the Vivitar as Kiron made the Vivitar) There are a coupl of others but these I have experiance with or have close friends who own tham and have seen the results first hand.I currently own the 75-200mm f4.5 nFD Canon (not great but very acceptable and it's very very light for traveling)The Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 AT-X (Big fast and sharp) I will be soon getting a 80-200mm f4.0L and since I recently picked up a 200mm f2.8 IF nFD I will be selling the Tokina but keeping the lt. wt. 75-200 as my wife really likes it.

 

Hope this helps.

[peter_white2]

That did help! ;-)

 

I hadn't used the lousy lens for so long I'd forgotten what it was! I don't have a 70-210. It's the 75-200 f:4.5 that I own and flares like there's no tomorrow. Sorry about the error. I've never used the 70-210.

 

PJW

[douglas_green1]

I would add to Mark Wahlster's 3rd party zoom list, any of the various lenses Tamron made in that range that had the SP designation, and the Vivitar Series 1 version that had an f2.8 max aperture, shrinking to f4 at the end of the tele range.

[jimvanson]

The Canon 80-200f4 FD is a good lens; medium large in size. The 80-200f4 L FD is superb but may be expensive; same size as its brethren. The Tamron 70-210 f3.5 SP was long, thin, poorly finished and I felt quite over rated. The Vivitar Series 1?s the first version was huge. The second and third of the series were slightly smaller. Optically quite good, very well built. I pick them up for about $50 to $75. The Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 AT-X is a joke, bigger then huge not as good at f4 as the 80-200 f4 L FD. Don?t consider it. And my favorite? It?s the tiny 70-210 F4-5.6 Tokina SD Macro. Great lens, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1499339&size=lg">sharp</a> , small, cheap?If I was looking for an FD zoom in that focal length range the 70-210 F4-5.6 Tokina SD Macro and the 80-200 f4 L would be my two choices.

[fast_primes]

I have both the 80-200F4.0 and 80-200F4.0L lens, and while the L is better, the two are actually close in performance. I've heard others say the same--the regular 80-200 is an excellent lens. I'd also suggest you consider the Canon 50-135F3.5 lens as well, it too is excellent and reasonable in cost. All three Canon zooms (both the 80-200s and the 50-135) take 58mm filters, while the 70-200 takes 52mm. I'd pass on the 70-200.

[nigel_craig]

I have an Amateur Photographer (UK) test from the early 1980's that ranks the 70-210 significantly higher than the 80-200.(this was part of a comprehensive test of lenses of that range). I have a 70-210 and an 80-200/4L. and think the 70-210 is surprisingly close on resloution and distortion but I think its signifiucantly warmer than the 80-200L.

[timothy_fitzgerald]

Well, I'm gonna give my two-cent's worth, and come down on the side of the FD 70-210mm f/4, qualifying that by saying I've not used the FD 80-200 f/4.<P>

 

In examining the respective specifications of each lens, the FD 70-210mm f/4 is a more compact lens than the FD 80-200mm f/4 (but comparable to the FD 80-200mm f/4 L), which makes it a bit easier to use often times. I tend to prefer the one-touch zoom for action photography, since you're not fumbling with two separate controls to try and capture that fleeting shot. It does, however, tend to make it a bit more challenging to keep one action fixed (e.g., focus) while you're manipulating the other action (zoom) quickly; two-touch zooms are definitely better in that regard. If you don't intend to do a lot of action photography with your ultimate choice, or your subject will tend to be at some fixed distance (e.g., infinity or effectively infinity) for the duration (such as at an airshow), the two-touch zoom might be the better choice.<P>

 

One other functional difference, for what it's worth, is that the FD 70-210mm f/4 offers macro capability at 70mm focal length; I don't believe the FD 80-200mm f/4 offers any macro capability (although the FD 80-200mm f/4 L does throughout its zoom range). So if you foresee some use for a macro capability, the 70-210 might be the lens to buy. The 70-210 might also make a better portrait zoom than the 80-200.<P>

 

Optically, I've not seen much evidence to support one choice over the other; by that I mean to say that the FD 70-210mm f/4 and FD 80-200mm f/4 appear to be comparable. I know that I've been happy with the results I've gotten using the FD 70-210mm f/4, and I've always thought that it was a good lens for the money.<P>

 

If you settle on the FD 70-210mm f/4, I've got a nice one to sell (have upgraded to the FD 80-200mm f/4 L). Click <B><A HREF="http://www.alltel.net/~timfitz/for_sale_pn.html">H E R E</A></B> to view a list, then click on the link for the 70-210 lens.