# your experience of buying very old EF L lenses



## ezpop (Jul 9, 2014)

I have the opportunity to buy a very old L lens. It's a 15 to 16 years 70 200 2.8L. Cosmetically, it's in very good condition. There are only a few small scratches on the body.
The glasses have no problem. No scratches, no fungus etc. No abnormality in auto focusing - quite fast outdoor and no strange noise. 
I tested it on my 7D and the images are sharp and the bokeh is nice looking.
Seller is asking for $780.
Should I go for it ?
What are the potential problem of a lens that old ? Electronics AF problem or others ??
For that amount of money, I may acquire a newer F4 IS. But the tank built pro grade 2.8 is very tempting.

Please share your view and experience.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 10, 2014)

The f/4 IS is significantly sharper, 4 stops of IS, much lighter and still as solid as a rock.  So, unless you really need f/2.8, don't even think about the old lens.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 10, 2014)

I have the MKI 70-200mm F2.8 L and have just upgraded to the MKII IS version.

Mine is a 2005 model so 9 years old and as far as I know there is no update in lens design could be wrong. 

In fact there is only a very small difference IQ wise to the MKI Non IS and the MKII IS. But the smaller minimum focus distance and IS are a huge huge benefit, and it is very slightly sharper. The Non IS is sharper than the MKI IS too.

http://youtu.be/E2Av9IPq_So

I would say go for it. Nothing like an F2.8 zoom the 70-200mm is a staple and one of the best lenses I ever bought. Use it all the time.

Just be careful, its hard work keeping that heavy 2.8 lens sharp at less than the rule of focal length to shutter speed. So at 200mm shoot no less than 1/200, It can be frustrating at times which is why the IS version is so good at 200 you can shoot at 1/30-1/50 with relative ease as long as the subject is stationary.

For the price difference it is a bargain.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

The F4 is a great lens but unless you need a lighter slower lens I would have the 2.8, especially if you are shooting crop, as the F2.8 will give DOF equivalent of F4.5. On FF its a no brainer F2.8 gorgeous subject isolation at all focal lengths. You get great portrait lengths 85mm 135mm and 200mm all at F2.8 which rivals the primes at that aperture.

Enjoy! Remember L lenses regardless of age hold their value so if its not for you move it on and buy another


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The f/4 IS is significantly sharper, 4 stops of IS, much lighter and still as solid as a rock. So, unless you really need f/2.8, don't even think about the old lens.



Really?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2014)

I once bought a used 200mm f/2.8L II with a UL date code (1997), paid $450 for it. It was a great lens, delivered very good IQ. I sold it only after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and I actually made a decent profit on the sale.


----------



## ezpop (Jul 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I once bought a used 200mm f/2.8L II with a UL date code (1997), paid $450 for it. It was a great lens, delivered very good IQ. I sold it only after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and I actually made a decent profit on the sale.



Dear Neuro,
Just curious to know when did you buy this UL date code lens ? I mean how old was the lens when you acquired it ?

I am skeptical towards buying a very old AF lens because of the electronics parts. Vintage manual lenses do not have the same problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2014)

ezpop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I once bought a used 200mm f/2.8L II with a UL date code (1997), paid $450 for it. It was a great lens, delivered very good IQ. I sold it only after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and I actually made a decent profit on the sale.
> ...



I bought (and sold) it in 2010.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 10, 2014)

I bought one last year for $300, still in the box, and Mint. I've also bought a couple in the $400-450 range. All were very good lenses. I think the sellers price is high, just one trip to Canon would put the price above a new one, but then, I'm one to hold back until the right deal comes along.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Really?
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


Check the comparisons at 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, and 200mm. It's undeniable that the f/4L is better mid-frame and in the corners at those distances. Not sure why the 135mm comparison doesnt match, but, TDP sometimes has some mismatches.

But, for $780, unless you absolutely need f/2.8 for auto-focus or DOF reasons, I agree that the f/4L IS is a damn nice lens. The savings in weight and added IS will make up for almost every use case.


----------



## rs (Jul 10, 2014)

It's worth bearing in mind that unlike some other really old lenses, the 70-200/2.8 is still a current lens - so even if they stopped making it today, parts will still be available for a number of years.

However, if it was my money I'd opt for a 70-200/4 IS. For my style of shooting, IS at those focal lengths is much more important than one stop of light. And the f4 IS is still very much in the 'tank built pro grade' league.

As well as the sharpness and handling advantages listed by other posters, the f4 IS is 'fully weather sealed' unlike the f2.8 non IS (whatever that Canon marketing phrase means; no IP rating is given for either lens). Optically, the non IS f2.8 lens is not as bad as the mk I IS version, but its not quite in the same ballpark as the f4 IS at f4, and nowhere near the mk II at f2.8. If you need very fast shutter speeds and/or a very shallow DoF from a zoom lens, and stabilisation and ultimate resolution aren't important to you, the 2.8 non IS could be worth getting over the f4 IS if you can financially handle potential repair costs. In every other situation, I'd recommend just getting the f4 IS.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 10, 2014)

The 70-200mm L Non IS has a weather sealing gasket on it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The 70-200mm L Non IS has a weather sealing gasket on it.



Sorry, but that's wrong. Like other pre-1999 white L lenses, it has sealing at the switches and zoom/focus rings, but it lacks the mount gasket that would make it a fully sealed lens.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 10, 2014)

Sorry thought it did!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 10, 2014)

I bought the 70-200 IS f/4 before the 2.8 II came out, and decided that the f/4 was much the better choice. Against the 2.8 II, the decision would have been much more difficult as it is a fabulous lens wide open, even a tad better at f/2.8 than the f/4 is at f/4. But, you have to stop the old f/2.8 down to f/4 to compete with the smaller lens. I recently posted some photos of the Tour de France in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21705.0 taken with the f/4 on a 5DIII. The images are tack sharp from corner to corner, seen even with the reduced sizes posted.


----------



## TLN (Jul 10, 2014)

Here's even older canon 80-200L from 1989. My copy was made in 1994 so it's anniversary lens this year  










That's shot wide open, f/2.8 at 170mm. 1/500 and 5d2 if anyone cares.
70-200L is modern design, and should be on par with that. 

For $780 I'd pull a trigger, especially if you don't have a zoom in that range.


----------

