EOS R + The Magic Drainpipe?

I have 2x the magic drainpipe and 3x the lesser known mini-magic drainpipe (EF 80–300mm f2.8–f4). The latter gives wonderful IQ on my 5Diii, I will soon be trying both on my R5.

Boatographer wrote:

I went with the Tamron 70-200 G2 (about $1000 used last spring) and just love it. Had to get it repaired as the focus motor flaked on me, but they charged me nothing.

What I haven't looked into is the compatibility of 3rd-party lenses with the RF-EF adaptors. I would need to do a bit more research before committing to an RF body because I loved the lens so much I bought four more Tamrons after that!

I absolutely love my 70-200 G2. IS is spooky good and it is sharp corner to corner at any focal length. That means for portraits you have complete freedom to place the model any where in the frame. 70-135 it's sharper than the Canon models. At 200 the latest Canon versions are sharper but only slightly and in the center, the Tamron still wins mid frame and edge.

Tamron does have a notice about an occasional Err70 issue with the R5/R6 (just turn the camera off/on to fix), but a firmware fix is coming if it hasn't already been released.

John Crowe wrote:

The Canon EF 80-200/2.8 L is by all accounts a superb lens and I see no reason for it not to work properly on an R body. If that is a true concern then the original Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS) would be the next best bet and you should find one at not much more than the 80-200.

Image quality is special on R5. Something about the lead (?) or other elements  (?) in the glass. The only con is that the lens will sometimes  "focus hunt" on my r5 more than on the 1DS MK3.

jdcarlson wrote:

I FULLY recommend the 80-200 2.8L ("magic drainpipe"). I bought one for my first DSLR (10D) in 2003.

The optics were superb. True, it did not have IS, and some said it was a little slow on focus, but these were not problems for me.

I wish I still had mine.

Another advantage - it was BLACK! So, when I used it (especially indoors) it did not attract the attention the new white long lenses do. It was a great "undercover" lens with plenty of reach.

I could not find a Canon 2x to fit it, but I found third party 2x and 3x extenders for it (lets see - 200mm X3x X1.6crop factor = 960mm - quite a long reach for a small black lens).

Of course the 2x and 3x lowered the optical performance, but gaining the extra reach was sometimes a necessity.

Mostly I did not use the extenders - but they were nice for unusual situations.

True, it is an older design - but the optical performance was as good as any lens around - and better than many on the current market!

To me, you cannot go wrong - as long as you get one that has been decently cared for.

Plus - as old as they are - if you can find one the price is very right!

Thanks,

Jim

I bought my first in 1992. Used. I was blown away by the images. The word magic was dead on correct.  Later I took it and a rented 70-200mm IS to Laguna Secs world superbike races along with both film and a 1Ds mk ii.

Despite all the fanfare for the 70-200mm, people including my wife prefered the photos from the 80-200mm without realizing that the  $600 dollar lens was blowing away the $1900 plus IS 70-200MM.

At first I thought the 80-200mm were from the 70-200mm. After I looked at the properties of the images on Saturday morning before going back to the track,  I realized one had the MAGIC; the other weighed a ton and had the identically sharp images, but the magical color was not there. The results from day 2 practice and qualifying were the same.

Sunday for the races, the rental  70-200mm white monster  stayed in the trunk of the car to be returned.

Thank the Good Lord it was only a rental.

I bought two more 80-200mm and used them exclusively until I bought the 100-400MM.

I now use a 24-70mm f2.8 and the 100-400MM and the gap between the 70 to 100, I ignore.

With the live view of the R5, the 80-200mm focus will start trying to focus, by going past the focus point then go back to focus perfectly maybe 5 percent of the time or less.  Happens very quikly. The rest of the time it is not a problem.

This spring I went to a family engagement party where there was a pro. I took my r5 and a couple of lens including the 80-200mm.  They loved my photos from the 80-200mm over the pro. They want me to do the wedding instead of the pro.

I told them to stick with the pro. I just am not into formal pictures and you need somebody to do that.

I am into real, true street photography that is NOT OF the genre of too many so called pros who sell their street photos as art after staging the model, the scene, and so forth.

Just sort of a behind the scenes snapper, where the resultant images of 10 shots, one might be great, some make good memories, and too many others are only good for practicing my deletion abilites.

Neverthess I had the pro being impressed,  wanting to know my post process settings. I told him it was 99 percent the native images from the r5 and 80-200mm, minus the deletions.

1. I think it is a shame that the process of how the glass was made in 1990's in Japan is no longer used. I have read it has to do with eliminating lead and so forth, but lead is still used in making crystal. So I dunno.

Finally, Canon is currently making only one lens that comes close to the same magic which is the Rf 28-70mm f2.0, that is in very short supply that has been selling on eBay for 3k to 4k...

DigitalAmnesia wrote:

Huntin4photos wrote:

John Crowe wrote:

The Canon EF 80-200/2.8 L is by all accounts a superb lens and I see no reason for it not to work properly on an R body. If that is a true concern then the original Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS) would be the next best bet and you should find one at not much more than the 80-200.

Image quality is special on R5. Something about the lead (?) or other elements (?) in the glass. The only con is that the lens will sometimes "focus hunt" on my r5 more than on the 1DS MK3.

I love this lens on the R5. What firmware are you on? Mine is focusing very reliably, very, very little hunting if ever for stills. For video I switch to manual focus, but it is still awesome. The video quality is the most impressive thing on the R5, it just has a classic look. I still love how the RF 70-200mm renders though, it comes through so rich and colorful. Hard to pick a favorite but they each have a unique look for sure.

I have not upgraded from original firmware already installed. I dont use the r5 to shoot any video, so i have not messed with updates. I will look in two days to see what it currently  is and update.

I think the "magic" comes from how the glass elements were made, using material no longer permitted to be used by certain regulations.  There are a number of internet sources you can find but  I think they may be based somewhat on conjecture because I have not seen an official answer from Canon.

The older model 200mm f1.8 may also use similar glass.

It is probably a look that could be duplicated with post processing,  but I have not tried that route.

As to focusing, I  agree that it seldom hunts and when it does, it is so brief that  I usually don't notice it shooting via live view.

strawpanda wrote:

I have 2x the magic drainpipe and 3x the lesser known mini-magic drainpipe (EF 80–300mm f2.8–f4). The latter gives wonderful IQ on my 5Diii, I will soon be trying both on my R5.

Correction:

I have 2x the magic drainpipe (EF 28–200mm f2.8 L) and 4x the lesser known mini-magic drainpipe (EF 28–80mm f2.8–f4 L). The latter gives wonderful IQ on my 5Diii, I will soon be trying both on my R5.

I have an FD 20-35mm f3.5 L adapted to EF mount, with a Digic-5 chip, by the Lens Doctor. I also have an EF 16-35mm f4 L and an EF 11-24mm f4 L, so I think I have wide angle quite well covered.