The repair shops do not sell parts. I figure that mine will be worth a good amount for parts even if breaks because it is so legendary. Bought for $2700 and I have already got easily $1500 worth of work done with it. It dies I break even in less that 2 years. In the meantime I have arguably the most special AF SLR lens ever made. Sorry risk=BS unless you are a collector.
As I read through this thread I was amazed at how quickly it turned in to a "can it be repaired thread"/ First, does it need repair? I see lens here that are "Old" taking fantastic images. If one wants bullet-proof, buy a disposable camera, use it once and through it away. Would I personally take the risk and buy a 200 f1.8, Mine arrived last week and I will enjoy using it NOW and worry about repairs later. Jim
The 200 f/1.8 copy I own currently was bought in 2006, and it still works perfectly, although I have not used it very much. But when I do, the lens is lots of fun.
I paid $3,200 for it. At that time I also bought 20D + 24-70L, which together came to about the same amount of money.
My 20D is long gone (I got about $200 for it), and so is that unremarkable copy of 24-70 where I also lost a few hundred dollars on resale. All in all, the money spent on 200 f/1.8 has been an infinitely better investment any which way I look at it.
oldrattler wrote:
As I read through this thread I was amazed at how quickly it turned in to a "can it be repaired thread"/ First, does it need repair? I see lens here that are "Old" taking fantastic images. If one wants bullet-proof, buy a disposable camera, use it once and through it away. Would I personally take the risk and buy a 200 f1.8, Mine arrived last week and I will enjoy using it NOW and worry about repairs later. Jim
That's what it is all about. Each persons risk assessment. I personally would not want to spend thousands of dollars on a lens that could become a door stop at any moment. I'd rather spend the thousands of dollars on a 200/2 that I don't have to worry about. I don't think it's unreasonable to bring that up as a serious point to consider.
saneproduction wrote:
I have never heard of anyone having a non-repairable 200 1.8. Seems like someone would post a thread about that here.
Some 2 years ago an FM member started experiencing serious IQ problems with his 200 f/1.8. He didn't make much splash of it on the forum, but he kept me informed of his tribulations.
It turned out that the lens element doublet cement had deteriorated badly. Also, the coating on some of lens elements degraded too. I have lost track of him since, and I do not know if he managed to get the lens sorted out or not. There was something eerily strange about that lens of his.
PetKal wrote:
Some 2 years ago an FM member started experiencing serious IQ problems with his 200 f/1.8. He didn't make much splash of it on the forum, but he kept me informed of his tribulations.
It turned out that the lens element doublet cement had deteriorated badly. Also, the coating on some of lens elements degraded too. I have lost track of him since, and I do not know if he managed to get the lens sorted out or not. There was something eerily strange about that lens of his.
I suspect fungus, which can eat away both cement between bonded elements and coatings on lens element surfaces. Some particular lenses are prone to separation between bonded elements, but IME, that's for lenses that are way older than the 1988 introduction date for the 200/1.8L. I don't know of any particular lenses with a disposition to suffer degradation of coatings, without external issues like abrasion, moisture, fungus, and etc.
Could have been some sort of fungus related decay, although the lens didn't exibit the usual appearance of a fungal infection.
When the owner showed me his test shots, I thought at first that his lens was grossly out of focus calibration. Then, we realised that nothing was sharp in those images, as if some major flare had affected the IQ. A real mistery. Eventually, he had the lens opened up by a repair shop, and they identified the problem source.
Based on condition it is probably worth around $2800-3100 assuming the glass is perfect and it functions as it should - super sharp at 1:1 with almost no improvement when stopping down except slight reduction in vignetting. This assumes the seller is giving the used warranty of the lens for a few months and will accept a return. Adorama was a great experience when I bought mine.
saneproduction wrote:
Based on condition it is probably worth around $2800-3100 assuming the glass is perfect and it functions as it should - super sharp at 1:1 with almost no improvement when stopping down except slight reduction in vignetting. This assumes the seller is giving the used warranty of the lens for a few months and will accept a return. Adorama was a great experience when I bought mine.
I agree with Mike on all of his points.
In addition, on the 2nd picture there could be a slight deformation in the lens rubber lip, top section. It is not easy to be sure based on the picture, but I think that area needs a closer inspection. On several 200 f/1.8 lenses I've seen damage done to the lens front lip (either deformed or cracked/broken) caused by a drop, or by some other manner of sharp impact to the lens.
I haven't the expertise to comment on how much risk is involved in purchasing a lens that is no longer supported by Canon. Clearly there is some. For you it will involve what is referred to as "the risk level you are comfortable with." I also can't comment directly on the quality of the 200mm f/1.8 as opposed to its successor. Given the cost of admission, these lenses are - as they use to say long ago in my life - "above my pay grade."
However Jim Clark, the Old Rattler, and his wife stopped by the other day on their photographic odyssey. I had to shoot a game at Baboquivari High School which is south of Sells, AZ so I took them along. The wind was blowing steady at 15-20 gusting to 40. Lots of dust and crud in the air. A real challenging day particularly as we went into twilight. Jim brought along his "new" 200mm f/1.8 coupled to a 5DIII. Now he will be the first to tell you that no matter how amazing the gear is, the photographer has to get it spot on and catch the action. (Ask him how many times he missed the steal at 3rd ) I was shooting the latest 70-200 on a 1DIV, a completely competent kit.
Still, we were both amazed at the capture or light or presence or whatever you want to call it of this lens - particularly as the light faded. I've attached one of Jim's pix. Nothing was done except converting to JPEG and resizing. Nothing I've ever worked with could catch this sort of light. I don't know what Canon did back then (likely something in the glass that can no longer be done), but it is a mind boggling bit of gear.
Robert
Josiah Nez throwing a strike in the bottom of the 6th against Baboquivari.
