# Canon 80-200 f2.8L Image Quality



## killswitch (Dec 10, 2012)

Remember this lens? I was wondering how it fares against the current 70-200 f2.8L. Just curious about the image quality of this lens. Anyone had experience with this lens please chime in. I wish Canon made their teles black >_<


----------



## M.ST (Dec 10, 2012)

RE: I wish Canon made their teles black.

I wish that Canon never made their teles black.


----------



## michi (Dec 10, 2012)

I had that lens "magic drain pipe" for some years. It takes great pictures and has a wonderful bokeh. There are no spare parts to be had anymore, so I sold it cheap when the rubber focusing ring disintegrated and things were going downhill. I have a 70-200 f4 L and I think it's a tad sharper but the bokeh is not as nice.

I wish Canon made gray telephoto lenses...


----------



## thebowtie (Dec 10, 2012)

michi said:


> I wish Canon made gray telephoto lenses...


I think we need a more imaginative set of colors!
Maybe lilac, puce, taupe - that way you could color-coordinate things! 

Of course, if what you are trying to achieve is less visibility that you have an expensive lens, maybe one of the commercially-available lens skins could work - you can get them in jungle patterns and various other camouflage too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2012)

M.ST said:


> RE: I wish Canon made their teles black.
> I wish that Canon never made their teles black.



On most tele lenses there is a tech reason for the white color - less heating which might affect part of the lens' elements. One exception is the 70-300L, the white color is pure marketing and I could very well do without the added attention - that's why I taped the lens, though it doesn't work on the extending barrel.


----------



## killswitch (Dec 10, 2012)

michi said:


> I had that lens "magic drain pipe" for some years. It takes great pictures and has a wonderful bokeh. There are no spare parts to be had anymore, so I sold it cheap when the rubber focusing ring disintegrated and things were going downhill.



How was the AF speed and accuracy?


----------



## michi (Jan 31, 2013)

Hard to say now. I think it was a tad slower than the new ones, but not terrible. I would have kept it if there were spare parts available.


----------



## TLN (Jan 31, 2013)

Hello.

I got this lens, and we got quite a big topic on this on a russian board: http://club.foto.ru/forum/11/371438,47
If you want i can share some samples, or you can check my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kovyrshin/ I'm not posting there much photos, but theese are taken with drainpipe:

I can search and post more photos if you want. Shortly: AF is slower then modern USM, but still quite fast. I can track birds, dragonfly, cars on a track without a problem. Once i lost focus point it take a bit to catch the object, but AF in 5d2 aint best. Lens is quite sharp, for the price i paid - no complains. I definately can see some vingetting, but this is not a problem to me and easy to edit. Overall, that's my first tele lens, and i'm really happy with it. 




Valerie by Victor TLN, on Flickr



Kingfisher by Victor TLN, on Flickr



dragonfly by Victor TLN, on Flickr


----------



## mfumbesi (Jan 31, 2013)

TLN said:


> Hello.
> 
> I got this lens, and we got quite a big topic on this on a russian board: http://club.foto.ru/forum/11/371438,47


I actually followed your link, and of course it is all in Russian. I ;D


----------



## TLN (Jan 31, 2013)

mfumbesi said:


> TLN said:
> 
> 
> > Hello.
> ...


Obviously. Did you expect different language on russian board? )
It's a bit harder to understand, but you can still check out all the images out there.


----------

