Canon 80-200mm f/2.8

I

Invertigo

Messages
279
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone got any experience?

I was considering picking up a used 70-200 f/2.8 to upgrade from my f/4, and then stumbled across this. I realise its an old lens, but from reading a couple of reviews, it seems to be that if you can deal with marginally slower and louder AF, and no FTM focusing, it's an excellent alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8, at a far lower cost second hand.

So, basically, yeah! Feed me info! :p
 
^^^That, plus, 80-200mm lenses are like rocking horse crap. Ie not very easy to come by.
 
They are more than capable, mine was seriously well used back in the 90's. However, given that they go for about £400 second hand now, I'd only get one if you were desperate for the 1 stop advantage over the 70-200 f4 non is. I've got the f4 non is now, and its pretty unbeatable for the price.

If you've got a 7d, I'd recommend the newer lens
 
Well I currently have the 70-200 f/4, but i do on occasion find myself wanting that extra stop.

I suppose, however, that I'm best off saving and getting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for an even bigger benefit to lower light work
 
The thing that eventually put me off continuing to look for an 80-200mm was the thought that I might find one, buy it, then 2 weeks later something goes wrong with it and because it's been out of production for so long, it'd be impossible to buy parts for a repair. At least if a 70-200 goes wrong you can get it fixed.
 
brianwar said:
The thing that eventually put me off continuing to look for an 80-200mm was the thought that I might find one, buy it, then 2 weeks later something goes wrong with it and because it's been out of production for so long, it'd be impossible to buy parts for a repair. At least if a 70-200 goes wrong you can get it fixed.
Click to expand...

Duly noted, and a very good point, to be fair! Think I should sit tight for now and save for a 2.8 IS
 
On the other hand the 80-200 is cheaper, as sharp (many say sharper) and if it lasted 20 years you must be very unlucky if it breaks 2 weeks after you bought it!

Anyway, I bought one for my wife and will have it tomorrow. Will test it against the 70-200 II that costs 4 times more and will post the results in this forum in a few days :)
 
micloi said:
On the other hand the 80-200 is cheaper, as sharp (many say sharper) and if it lasted 20 years you must be very unlucky if it breaks 2 weeks after you bought it!

Anyway, I bought one for my wife and will have it tomorrow. Will test it against the 70-200 II that costs 4 times more and will post the results in this forum in a few days :)
Click to expand...

I hope yours will work out OK. They are very sharp, but are riddled with serious design 'flaws' and very very worn out over those 20 years. It's the main workhorse lens! Tamron also does 70-200/2.8 which is reviewed to be sharper than some of the Canon's but sadly it's af put it at the bottom of the ladder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top