Switch from 80-200 2.8 to 70-200 2.8?

Hello all,

At this time I have a great 80-200 2.8 lens that works great and was serviced about 5 years ago and had the focus motor replaced so I would think it will last along time. Lately though I have been thinking about getting a 70-200 2.8. I cannot really explain why but to say I just have that itch for something different.

To this I would have to sell the 80-200 to fund the 70-200. I was just wondering if anyone thought this would be a good idea or if I should just keep the 80-200? I would just get the 70-200 without IS as I have not had a need for it so do you think that this would be just a lateral move?
Thank you,
Tom

The USM motor could be a factor.
You can catch so much snap shot w/ fast AF.

However, IMO, I won't bother switching....

I've heard the 80-200 is just as sharp as the 70-200s, so unless USM is important, I am not sure it would be worth it. Regards

Thoff said:

Hello all,
At this time I have a great 80-200 2.8 lens that works great and was
serviced about 5 years ago and had the focus motor replaced so I
would think it will last along time. Lately though I have been
thinking about getting a 70-200 2.8. I cannot really explain why but
to say I just have that itch for something different.
To this I would have to sell the 80-200 to fund the 70-200. I was
just wondering if anyone thought this would be a good idea or if I
should just keep the 80-200? I would just get the 70-200 without IS
as I have not had a need for it so do you think that this would be
just a lateral move?
Thank you,
Tom

Click to expand...

Maybe take into consideration...
black lens vs white lens

The 70-200 will definitely draw more attention.

--
dohdoh
http://www.project107.com

A magic drainpipe, 80-200 f/2.8L? I have one myself, gorgeous lens. The 70-200 gains you 10mm at the wide end which is not to be sneezed at by any means, I have considered an upgrade for that reason alone. USM; nice to have but hardly critical given the very snappy AF in the 80-200. Finally, the 70-200 vignettes less than the drainpipe, not that this has bothered me much but it can be obvious in some shots.

The downside is the white colour, of course; the 80-200 is more discreet.

I think the 80-200 vignettes more but that could just be my perception. It uses a 72mm filter while the 70-200 uses a 77mm filter. That, and the USM is most decidedly faster. Unless the AF performance of your 80-200 is bothering, I'd keep it. I love mine!

Thank you for alll the replies.

I have been bouncing back and forth on this for a while so I guess I am not in any hurry. I have not noticed the vignetting that you mention but I have not really looked for it either. It has never done me wrong but I there is that itch that tells me to do it, don't understand it.
Time will tell what happens I guess.
Thanks again,
Tom

As someone who has the 70-200 2.8 IS i would say yes only i fyou have get the IS b/c i think the IS is worth it... but without it is a lateral move

I also have the 28-70 instead of the 24 and I love when people ask me what i have and then i respond and they have never heard of it! So stay with the "vintage" gear... it is more fun, it stops "n00bs" from thinking they know everything about Canon and then they'll leave you alone.

I shoot a lot for a company that does athletic events and then you sell the photos to the parents and its getting ridiculous what i see on the sidelines from these "soccer" mom's. They'll be sitting there with 3000$ set up so that little Johnie or Susy will remember their childhood a little more sharply
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tstride/

Stride said:

They'll be sitting there
with 3000$ set up so that little Johnie or Susy will remember their
childhood a little more sharply

Click to expand...

I'm kind of with you on that - but if I'd had the gear I have now when my daughter was a gymnast (15-20 years ago) we'd have some much better photographs of those times.