80-200mm 4.5-5.6 ignoramus

[Benuch]

Can someone help me understand the difference between the 80-200mm 4.5 and the 70-200 mm 4, other then the 10mm difference?
Since I own the 80-200mm is it worth it to spend the money for a 70-200 mm for regular portrait and candid closeups (meaning not for sports)?

Also what is a L

Thanks
Beny

[slin100]

In short, there's a world of difference.

The 80-200 has a variable aperture, that goes from f/4.5 at 80mm to f/5.6 at 200mm. The 70-200 has a fixed f/4 aperture. This 70-200 will be capable of achieving narrower depth-of-field and be usable in lower light.

The 70-200 is an L lens. "L" stands for luxury. L lenses are Canon's line of professional-grade lenses. They are built to a higher standard of optical quality. This often translates into sharper images, truer colors, higher contrast, lower distortion, less flare, and other fewer optical aberrations. L lenses are also built to last. The controls will frequently operate with more smoothness. The lens may have special weather seals to protect against the elements. Focus will generally be faster and quieter. L lenses often hold their value more reliably.

The choice to upgrade is obviously yours. The 80-200 you have is a budget-level, consumer lens. There's nothing wrong with that. If you make the, ahem, mistake of looking through a 70-200/4L, you'll never want to go back! :-)

[Citizensmith]

As the previous poster said, the 70-200 4 is faster, althouhg not by much. The biggest deal is it is much better built and has optics second to none in the tele-zoom lines. People love to talk about how lenses like that really help a photo 'pop' or use other fairly meaningless terms like that. Except then you actually use one and discover that they aren't meaningless they are spot on. Photos from this lens will be noticably better than the 80-200.

Of course the 80-200 has two very good cards in its hand. Its cheap and its small. Both can be a major influence.

[Benuch]

Thanks guys. Instructional, to the point.