Topic: New Toy - 80-200 f/2.8L

I've been looking round for a mid range zoom and came across an 80-200 f/2.8L for a pretty reasonable price. As I seem to be shooting a lot of indoor stuff, I thought the extra stop would be more worthwhile than buying a newer f/4L.

Here a a few images that I snapped today while we had some family down (was my daughters 1st birthday yesterday).


Snook outside for a crafty image down the side of my car.


My Nana (not doing too bad for 90!)


My old man, a bit tired from trying to keep up with the little one.

I am pretty happy with it so far. It does weigh a ton (1.3kg) mind, and I think therefore it might take some getting used to.

For someone who was concerned about putting a £350 budget together for a camera it's nice to see you've well and truly thrown the rule book away like the rest of us Andy! I'm not familiar with the 80-200 f2.8, the 70-200 f2.8 which replaced it & the 70-210 f4L Lenses are both excellent and almost all of the L glass is optically superb. Your lens doesn't have an ultrasonic focussing motor so isn't as fast or quiet as it's replacement but the reviews say it's very similar optically. Bear in mind that the current 70-200 f2.8 without IS is a thousand quid so if you got a great deal on it I'd be very happy about it if I were you Well done!

Barry

PS. Is that a Scirroco Andy? I'm sure it's a mid to late 80's VW with a Golfish shape but the rear lights aren't quite right for one

Your nan looks well. Was that shot taken with it wide open? One of her eyes is sharp and the other blurred. Wickedly small depth of field at open settings. You'll have to watch that. Looks like a good lens - enjoy  

(I see from the EXIF it was f/4, so at 2.8 it's gonna be even less dof - should make for some great background elimination shots  )

Well I came to the conclusion that I'm probably better of spending a bit more for the quality, and also the better gear seems hold resale value a lot better. It cost me a shade under £300, which is less than a f4 secondhand. I would like to compare the speed against a USM version as this is pretty quick on the focusing, and not that loud either.

She sure is, it's and '86 to be precise. I'm the second owner and she has a genuine 80k on the clock (was 33k when I bought here back in '98), and I knew the previous old man owner too. Was just a toy for many years, but she's now come back into daily use, due to my wifes change in circumstances.

Well I came to the conclusion that I'm probably better of spending a bit more for the quality, and also the better gear seems hold resale value a lot better. It cost me a shade under £300, which is less than a f4 secondhand. I would like to compare the speed against a USM version as this is pretty quick on the focusing, and not that loud either.

That's a bargain Andy, a great lens is always a great lens looking forward to seeing it put to much use.

She sure is, it's and '86 to be precise. I'm the second owner and she has a genuine 80k on the clock (was 33k when I bought here back in '98), and I knew the previous old man owner too. Was just a toy for many years, but she's now come back into daily use, due to my wifes change in circumstances.

Excellent, I haven't seen one of those in ages! Some years back I had a 1986 MkII Golf Gti 8v and adored it.

Right then this has been baffling me for a while so I'm hoping one of you more experienced guys can help me. On the AF switch I have 3 options MF which is of course manual, 1.8m to infinity and 3.5m to infinity. Why are there two AF to infinity? Surely the 1.8m to infinity covers the latter?

Hi Andy,

Depends how quickly you want the lens to focus - it will be quicker on the 3.5 to infinity setting because it doesn't have to scan through the focusing range. Obviously if you want to focus on something close then move the switch to 1.8 mtrs. The 100-400mm L lens has something similar.

TTFN,
Neil

Cheers Neil, what I suspected, but thought I'd better ask.