p.1 #1 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
I'm in the position of being able to obtain a nearly pristine Canon 80-200 2.8L lens with both caps and hood. I currently have a 70-200 4 that I adore though I must admit it's difficult for indoor equine sports which is my main focus. I've been looking for a 70-200 2.8 but have heard great things about the 80-200 (I did make use of the search feature here). Given that I have found both for sale in good condition which would you go with and why? Also, give then age of the 80-200 what would you personally consider a 'good deal' on it?
p.1 #2 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
I have the 80-200 and love it. I also have the 70-300 IS which although not the 20-200/4 is close.
I tend to use both bu at different times. the 2.8 is better for low light and shallower DOF so I take it out whem I'm shooting for myself, bu take the 70-300 out with family as its much smaller and lighter but still gives good quality.
If you main focus is indoors and still need a zoom then go for the 2.8 as should give sharp shots wide open. i you dont need the zoom then think about a 135/2
p.1 #3 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
I owned a 80-200L for a few years, and then switched to 70-200/2.8L IS. Now I also have a 70-200/4L IS. You can find recent prices for all Canon primes and L-zooms at http://tinyurl.com/2wt8oe. Unless you really want the black lens body colour, or you get a really good price, I'd go with the 70-200/2.8L - it's still supported by Canon and you'll never find any meaningful difference in quality between them. Regardless of which you get, you should also get a tripod mount ring. OTOH, Ian's suggestion is also worth considering - you could get usefully higher shutter speeds with a 135/2L and 85/1.8, and better IQ in many circumstances.
p.1 #4 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
Well the 80-200 is $600 and the 70-200 is $800 And to be honest the black of the 80-200 wouldn't bother me at all. I already get enough strange looks with my big white f/4 lens.
p.1 #5 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
The main differences between an 80-200 and a 70-200 2.8 non is is the 70-200 has better autofocus and can still be fixed if it breaks without problems and has 10mm wider wide end. But the 80-200 is a terrific lens nonetheless, and is excellent at 200mm and 2.8.
p.1 #7 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
If you can get a 70-200 2.8 for $800 then as lon as its in good condition and gives good IQ then I would be swayed towards that.
This from (as I said in my other post) a 80-200L magic drainpipe owner.
Just also note that with eitehr of the lenses you mention you should get the tripod collar with it as these are quite expensive to buy and I wouldn't trust ebay knock offs
p.1 #8 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
Both come with the tripod collars. It might come down to me just going and using both and deciding then which to stick with. The fact that you can't really get service on the 80-200 is the only thing really that's got me hesitating. The extra 10mm of the 70-200 is moot because I generally use my f4 at or very near the 200mm end. I'd honestly considered the 200 2.8 prime but I'm not sure if I want to be that limited as well as not knowing how it would do with equine sports and rodeo.
p.1 #9 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
MelmoK wrote:
Well the 80-200 is $600 and the 70-200 is $800 And to be honest the black of the 80-200 wouldn't bother me at all. I already get enough strange looks with my big white f/4 lens.
I use black gaff tape on my 70-200 to hide the white, and it gets a lot less notice.
p.1 #10 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
My memory is slipping a bit here, but isn't a key difference between the 80-200 and the 70-200 the ability to use a 1.4 converter? I don't think you can put one in the 80-200, and this can be a bit of a pain if you want a light, affordable, portable to push a bit of extra range out of your gear.
p.1 #12 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
you cant use canon TC's with the 80-200 as the rear element is flush with the rear of the lens. The other difference is it doesn't have ring USM but has a very good af mech anyway and is fast and accurate
p.1 #15 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
Because I'm afraid it just wouldn't handle the rodeo and equine sports too well. It's a lot of fast action. I've thought about it but really don't know how it'd do.
p.1 #16 · Lens acquisition... too similiar of lenses?
I have owned the 80-200, and 70-200s (2.8, 2.8 IS, 4) and yes the 80-200 is very sharp. Wide open I would say it was sharper, by a little, then the 2.8 and by fair bit then the 2.8 IS. The "magic drainpipe" name can make people get a little crazy about this lens. It is not magical, just really nice. My 200 2.8 was at least as magical wide open.
I shoot horse shows with a 70-200 2.8 non-IS and prefer it over the drainpipe for the jumping events, the non-USM AF motor is a beat slower on the pipe. Though the IQ really is nice.
The rear element on the 80-200 is flush with the end of the lens, very exposed to damage. If you do buy the pipe, make sure that there is no existing damage and be very careful with the back when changing lenses, damage to the rear element is more likely to show up in images then front element damage. Also, if you are looking at the drainpipe be sure that you are getting a mint, mint copy. It is an older lens and harder to repair, so you don't want a lens that has seen heavy use for the last 15 or 20 years and may be at the end of its life. My copy was mint with the case and clearly had sent most of its life tucked away in some closet, I never worried about reliability, it really is a very well built lens.
