Canon France is applying a 9% increase on most lenses as of 01/01/2009. My guess is that this is due to the increase in the exchange rate of the Japanese yes. Do you think that this increase is related?
jm42 wrote:
Only the most expensive lenses have better IQ imho. Other posters have already praised the AF. I don’t think you will find anybody that finds a weakness with this lens. The zoom is more versatile of course, but the extra half kg is at least stopping me from buying it.
However, what I have come to realize with the FL is that it’s typically too long on a crop body to shoot people. You need a lot of space and usually something is in the way, if you can’t arrange the shot that is. In addition, the angle of view is so narrow that you hardly ever get any context (background) to your picture, which I think is boring in the long run.
At the same time I think it’s way too short for anything but tame or “semi-tame” animals. I was thinking of a converter myself, but I have realized that a 1.4x will not help much and a 2x seems to take the edge of the IQ. I suggest you make a special post regarding its wildlife performance if you are interested in that.
But if the FL is right for you, you will not regret it. I think I can promise that.
I agree with you concerning using this lens on a crop. I no longer have a Canon full frame, and I actually find using a 135L on a crop to be a challenge. Someone commented in an earlier post on this thread that there is no zoom that compares with the 200/2.8 lens - I don't find that to be an entirely accurate statement at all. The 80-200L at 200mm does not have quite the contrast, but it is nearly as sharp if not its equal; and in most instances it is very hard to discern between these two lenses with side by side shots. The 80-200L is unique in this regard in that it is virtually the only XX-200 zoom in the Canon lineup that still has exceptional IQ at 200 mm.
I have the 200/2.8 Mk I model and really like the fact that the hood is already there and not too big. Using the Mk II lens as a "clandestine" lens, per se, is a bit of a stretch imho, as the hood adds enough inches to the barrel that it is not very easily disguised. This lens is very flare resistant, and I have never found the Mk I hood to be lacking yet.
I am not going to sell my 20D any time soon, but now that the 5D is dropping pretty hard I may be hard pressed to not get one again if they drop down to five to seven hundred dollars a year or so from now. Maybe I did not read the initial post by the OP carefully enough, but if you are using a full frame the 200/2.8 is a great and economical lens to get - especially if you can find a mint used Mk I. Like others I use my Mk I whenever I can - it is just that good. And being a budget minded kind of person for a zoom with virtually the same IQ at 200mm I would look no further than 80-200L.
I've owned both versions of this lens; the only difference between the two is the lens hood.
The hood on the original version is too small to effectively shade the front element, but the detachable hood on the Mark II is a bit too big to pack in most camera bags. It shades the lens better, but it would have been nice if Canon could have made it a bit slimmer.
molson wrote:
I've owned both versions of this lens; the only difference between the two is the lens hood.
The hood on the original version is too small to effectively shade the front element, but the detachable hood on the Mark II is a bit too big to pack in most camera bags. It shades the lens better, but it would have been nice if Canon could have made it a bit slimmer.
Just curious as to what problems you found using the Mk I hood. I have used it down at the ocean, at sunrise and sunset, and have not experienced any lack in the hood yet. Personally I wondered why Canon changed the hood having owned both also - just something else to try and fit in a bag or to lose.
molson wrote:
I've owned both versions of this lens; the only difference between the two is the lens hood.
The hood on the original version is too small to effectively shade the front element, but the detachable hood on the Mark II is a bit too big to pack in most camera bags. It shades the lens better, but it would have been nice if Canon could have made it a bit slimmer.
Improved coatings on the II
As for the hood, I'm not nuts about it either. Got a B+W 72mm metal screw in that's great. Added bonus...
screw to CirPol and it's a piece of cake to rotate.
I bought mine used on FM buy and sell for $550 a few years ago. It's worth every penny and then some. I would say it is one of the L bargain lenses for sure. I can't compare to either of the 2.8 versions of the 70-200, but sharpness, color and perceived contrast are excellent.
molson wrote:
I've owned both versions of this lens; the only difference between the two is the lens hood.
The hood on the original version is too small to effectively shade the front element, but the detachable hood on the Mark II is a bit too big to pack in most camera bags. It shades the lens better, but it would have been nice if Canon could have made it a bit slimmer.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Improved coatings on the II
As for the hood, I'm not nuts about it either. Got a B+W 72mm metal screw in that's great. Added bonus...
screw to CirPol and it's a piece of cake to rotate.
TMonkey:
I've got side by sides at some of my favorite shooting spots with both lenses (different times, of course) and cannot see any difference the improved coatings make.
Kinda like the new and improved coatings on the 85L Mk II maybe, where the end result is a lens that tests out to be not as sharp (albeit focuses much faster).
Fortunately this is not the case with the Primepipe.
philber wrote:
Canon France is applying a 9% increase on most lenses as of 01/01/2009. My guess is that this is due to the increase in the exchange rate of the Japanese yes. Do you think that this increase is related?
Prices in the Netherlands stayed more or less the same I think. At least the price of the 200 2.8 came down from 548 to 529 just a week ago (and two days after I ordered it, of course).
KKFung wrote:
I'm still thinking to buy a 70-200/2.8 IS or 135/2 + 200/2.8
My friend borrowed me his 70-200/2.8 IS two days ago hope I can find out the solution soon
I believe all IQ from those lens is great and more than enough for me, just want to see what is better for my application
PS I have 24-70 and 300/4 IS with the 5D2, want something fill in between
My 70-200 2.8 IS pales in comparison to my 135. The zoom is a nice lens but I grab it mainly when I need its versatility. For sheer IQ and 'wow'-factor, I always use primes.
I've got side by sides at some of my favorite shooting spots with both lenses (different times, of course) and cannot see any difference the improved coatings make.
Kinda like the new and improved coatings on the 85L Mk II maybe, where the end result is a lens that tests out to be not as sharp (albeit focuses much faster).
Fortunately this is not the case with the Primepipe....wrote Tinke
Hey, the OP asked for differences. Canon lists improved coatings...I made NO claim to seeing any difference in IQ
You're gonna quote me...kindly stick to the facts, man.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Hey, the OP asked for differences. Canon lists improved coatings...I made NO claim to seeing any difference in IQ
You're gonna quote me...kindly stick to the facts, man.
Just 'cause ya said please Looks like a difference to me, optically close BUT not identical.
Don't shoot the messenger, I've had both and kept the newer version.
molson wrote:
I've owned both versions of this lens; the only difference between the two is the lens hood.
The hood on the original version is too small to effectively shade the front element, but the detachable hood on the Mark II is a bit too big to pack in most camera bags. It shades the lens better, but it would have been nice if Canon could have made it a bit slimmer.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Improved coatings on the II
As for the hood, I'm not nuts about it either. Got a B+W 72mm metal screw in that's great. Added bonus...
screw to CirPol and it's a piece of cake to rotate.
tinke wrote: TMonkey:
I've got side by sides at some of my favorite shooting spots with both lenses (different times, of course) and cannot see any difference the improved coatings make.
Kinda like the new and improved coatings on the 85L Mk II maybe, where the end result is a lens that tests out to be not as sharp (albeit focuses much faster).
Fortunately this is not the case with the Primepipe.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Hey, the OP asked for differences. Canon lists improved coatings...I made NO claim to seeing any difference in IQ
You're gonna quote me...kindly stick to the facts, man.
And, if you are going to quote me you should really stick to the facts as well. Really!!!
No where did I misquote you at all, and I never said you said anything you didn't state.
So, maybe wake up and smell the roses, rather than rolling out of the wrong side of bed.
And I thought this was a fun & relaxing forum to hang out......pardon my misperception. I'll just log off, and slither away (not).
trenchmonkey wrote:
Just 'cause ya said please Looks like a difference to me, optically close BUT not identical.
Don't shoot the messenger, I've had both and kept the newer version.
Looks like the TESTS were NOT identical between the two lenses,
since there is NO weighting for f5.6 for the Mk II lens, but is for the Mk I lens.
This necessarily skews any weighted averaging of results.
So, the results show it's the TESTS that are optically close, BUT not identical;
we cannot make any accurate conclusion using the weighted Photodo MTF scores.
Good thing we all know how to HORSE around here, huh?
trenchmonkey wrote:
Just 'cause ya said please Looks like a difference to me, optically close BUT not identical.
Don't shoot the messenger, I've had both and kept the newer version.
Many thanks but according to your original phrasing I assumed that there is an official Canon statement. I looked but have failed to find such. Actually, what I have found were statements (like the one below) which conclude there is no optical change.
"There are two versions which differ only in the nature of the lens hood. The original version had a short, built-in, hood, while the Mk II version has a longer, detachable hood. Optically they are the same."
I've never seen an official statement from Canon on this, but I think it's likely that
the coatings were changed. It's of course even possible that Canon phases in
new coatings into existing designs without notifying us, but I expect the most
natural time to use new coatings is in a revised design.
I've never seen anyone complain about either version here. It seems to be a
universally praised lens. It is a beautiful optic; Canon's tele lenses really are
tough to fault. They have made their reputation here.
trumpet_guy wrote:
I've never seen an official statement from Canon on this, but I think it's likely that
the coatings were changed. It's of course even possible that Canon phases in
new coatings into existing designs without notifying us, but I expect the most
natural time to use new coatings is in a revised design.
I've never seen anyone complain about either version here. It seems to be a
universally praised lens. It is a beautiful optic; Canon's tele lenses really are
tough to fault. They have made their reputation here.
Optically there was no change in the composition or number of elements or groups, so there was no revised design per se.
So I wonder why Canon made a point to announce new and improved coatings on the new 85L Mk II and 24L Mk II then.
This is just my assumption. I have no facts to argue with, so you may indeed be
correct. One thing I did notice in the EF Lens Work III book is that Canon mentions
the following for the mk II lens, but since I don't have an older edition of EF Lens
Work, I don't know if this also applies to the mk I version:
"The new rear focus design which reduces the overall weight of the moving lens elements
and improves focusing precision also compensates for aberrations."
I expect this also applies to the mk I. But Canon doesn't really say clearly either way.
Looks like a difference to me, optically close BUT not identical.