Reading mode: Light Dark

*56k warning* Wow 80-200 F 2.8 vs 70-200 F4

Go to last post
irm said:
invade somebody, so you could be next. LOL
Click to expand...
I doubt that, i heard in the 80ies that our Jetfighters need 3 Minutes to cross the country. Thats much to small for George to find even Cruise Missiles woul miss us and hit Germany or France instead ;-)
 
Aaron80 - Andrea said:
I think that your 70-200 has some problem, mine is not so soft at
any aperture...
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree. Here's my son's eye, taken with the 70-200 f/4 set at f/5.6, 1/125s, from about 3m away, handheld, at ISO 200, in Adobe RGB RAW.

%100 crop, NO retouching at all besides conversion from RAW to an sRGB jpg.



And the same crop, USM'd (100/0.3/0) and contrast corrected a bit:



Granted that it was at f/5.6, but there is not a huge difference from f/4 to f/5.6 on the 70-200 f/4 in my experience.
 
I just traded in my 80-200mm f/2.8 "L" for a 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" I do a lot of sports are there is no contest between the USM focusing on the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" For me it is a business decision, the lens as you know, is about 15 years old. Good luck getting it fixed if something happens to it.

So, the money I got for the trade in, very nice in my opinion, helped pay for a boxing day sale-priced 70-200mm f/2.8 "L"

Personally I can't tell what lens is sharper, as the 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" is very sharp as well. I can't tell in prints so there is no loss for me...

--
Paul S.

Disclaimer:
--------------

The comments made here are of my own opinions and experiences. The comments are not meant to be a testament of anybody else’s experiences but mine.

http://www.surettephotography.com - Now under construction
 
It still has over 6 days left. Also, I believe that lens came with a nice hard case and tripod mount. That might keep the price down a bit since it is not shown with anything else. Another thing that would keep the price down would be like the previous poster said, "Stop talking about the discontinued lens so people might end up getting a good deal on one".

Rgds
KR
DHC said:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3866864570&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT

Item number 3866864570

Good luck to you!
ribian said:
either stop posting about the 80-200 f/2.8 outstanding performances
or ... sell me one! ;-)
---
RIccardo BIANchi
(english is not my 1st language)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
KR2 said:
It still has over 6 days left. Also, I believe that lens came with
a nice hard case and tripod mount. That might keep the price down
a bit since it is not shown with anything else. Another thing that
would keep the price down would be like the previous poster said,
"Stop talking about the discontinued lens so people might end up
getting a good deal on one".
Click to expand...
The item description says that it includes the tripod collar, but not the case. The case is useless anyway IMHO. Looks like whoever buys this one is getting a good lens. And no, it's not my auction -- I'll never sell my 80-200 :-)

--
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294
 
Did you take the shots at 70mm? Many of us have back focused 70-200mm f/4 especially from 70mm to 90mm. Tack sharp at 200mm though.
 
The thing about the 80-200 L is that the images have a slightly different quality to them - more "film-like"?? Hard to describe, but nice.
TargetSu said:
I just traded in my 80-200mm f/2.8 "L" for a 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" I
do a lot of sports are there is no contest between the USM focusing
on the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" For me it is a business decision,
the lens as you know, is about 15 years old. Good luck getting it
fixed if something happens to it.

So, the money I got for the trade in, very nice in my opinion,
helped pay for a boxing day sale-priced 70-200mm f/2.8 "L"

Personally I can't tell what lens is sharper, as the 70-200mm f/2.8
"L" is very sharp as well. I can't tell in prints so there is no
loss for me...

--
Paul S.

Disclaimer:
--------------
The comments made here are of my own opinions and experiences. The
comments are not meant to be a testament of anybody else’s
experiences but mine.

http://www.surettephotography.com - Now under construction
Click to expand...
 
the 70-200 2.8L version. Why would anybody pay this kind of money for a 15 years old lens with no chances to be ever fixed in case of a real failure? Let me tell you why......because of pbase.
 
and constantly looking for any fixer-upper (for parts) or real mint ones.

If you think I am just blowing some hot air, please look at this:

http://www.pbase.com/riokid/image/38200795/original

If one breaks, I have a backup.

dan
Youry said:
the 70-200 2.8L version. Why would anybody pay this kind of money
for a 15 years old lens with no chances to be ever fixed in case of
a real failure? Let me tell you why......because of pbase.
Click to expand...
 
Please tell me what you mean by no contest. More details on your view of the relative AF speed of the two woud be greatly appreciated.
TargetSu said:
I just traded in my 80-200mm f/2.8 "L" for a 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" I
do a lot of sports are there is no contest between the USM focusing
on the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" For me it is a business decision,
the lens as you know, is about 15 years old. Good luck getting it
fixed if something happens to it.

So, the money I got for the trade in, very nice in my opinion,
helped pay for a boxing day sale-priced 70-200mm f/2.8 "L"

Personally I can't tell what lens is sharper, as the 70-200mm f/2.8
"L" is very sharp as well. I can't tell in prints so there is no
loss for me...

--
Paul S.

Disclaimer:
--------------
The comments made here are of my own opinions and experiences. The
comments are not meant to be a testament of anybody else’s
experiences but mine.

http://www.surettephotography.com - Now under construction
Click to expand...
 
It looks like you may have both the 80-200 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 L. If that is true, I would appreciate your view on the relative AF speed of the two.
Thanks.
riokid said:
If you think I am just blowing some hot air, please look at this:

http://www.pbase.com/riokid/image/38200795/original

If one breaks, I have a backup.

dan
Youry said:
the 70-200 2.8L version. Why would anybody pay this kind of money
for a 15 years old lens with no chances to be ever fixed in case of
a real failure? Let me tell you why......because of pbase.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It is a just a tad slower than the non-IS 70-200/2.8L.

dan
frety said:
riokid said:
If you think I am just blowing some hot air, please look at this:

http://www.pbase.com/riokid/image/38200795/original

If one breaks, I have a backup.

dan
Youry said:
the 70-200 2.8L version. Why would anybody pay this kind of money
for a 15 years old lens with no chances to be ever fixed in case of
a real failure? Let me tell you why......because of pbase.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top