80-200L Magic Drainpipe

My first thread here on POTN.

I recently found a local trade for a 80-200L, for my 17-40L.
I want to know if I should go ahead with the trade, whilst I do like the 17mm on the 17-40L, I think the 24-70L will be wide enough for my needs on the 5Dc.

As a college student, I don't really have a particular "field" I like to photograph, but portraits are of interest.

However I do have several concerns about the older 80-200L -
1. AF Speed.
2. Future breakage
3. Tripod Collar (The one I found doesn't seem to come with one, at least I didnt get a reply on the matter yet.)

http://newyork.craigsl​ist.org/que/pho/345282​7897.html

Thanks.

In my opinion I'd get something like a 70-200 f/4. Ya you'll miss the f/2.8 but at least its serviceable and more modern! I'm a bit paranoid with old equipment (especially lenses with more electronic components like AF). I'd be more inclined to buy a very old lens that is purely manual focus. Just my opinion.

^ I think maybe SiaoP meant 70-200?

While the 80-200 has appeal, do you want to get stuck with a $700 paperweight? A Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS will render beautiful sharp pics and still be able to be serviced so you should weigh those options as well.

I chose a near mint 80-200 magic drain pipe over any of the 70-200 varieties for its cost, its speed, and its color...black. Nearly all my outdoor photography is done alone, and having a white lens is just too much 'advertisement' in my book.

Mine came with came with a tripod color, that apparently came with it when new.

As far as future repairability in case something goes wrong? Having only $750 in it, I'd first see if some non-Canon place could repair it, and if not, sell it for parts on ebay.

S_Egbert wrote in post #15395826
^ I think maybe SiaoP meant 70-200?

oops Typo

Thanks guys, I think I'll save up for a 70-200 F4. Like everyone said, $700 is a big deal to me at the moment so I rather not get stuck with an expensive paperweight.

If you need 2.8 for shooting sports under the lights, or indoors (pushing it), F4 will limit you IMO.

Newer copies if the 200 2.8 ii are going for ~$500 in mint condition on these forums and on eBay right now if you are going to be using mostly the 200mm end of the zoom length. The IQ of this low priced L lens is very nice, as is the price.

I chose this route over the 80-200 because for less money I was getting a much newer lens with virtually identical IQ. Having a zoom is convenient, but when pinching pennies primes can be a smart purchase.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #15396377
If you need 2.8 for shooting sports under the lights, or indoors (pushing it), F4 will limit you IMO.

Newer copies if the 200 2.8 ii are going for ~$500 in mint condition on these forums and on eBay right now if you are going to be using mostly the 200mm end of the zoom length. The IQ of this low priced L lens is very nice, as is the price.

I chose this route over the 80-200 because for less money I was getting a much newer lens with virtually identical IQ. Having a zoom is convenient, but when pinching pennies primes can be a smart purchase.

I'll keep that in mind as well, the lighter weight is enticing. But as an architecture student, I don't think I'll have much opportunities to shoot sports, haha.

The Drainpipe is built like a tank
none of the 70-200 L's surpassed its image quality till the markii was released

jjackflash wrote in post #15396986
The Drainpipe is built like a tank
none of the 70-200 L's surpassed its image quality till the markii was released

And if there is a problem with the lens shortly after purchase it will be worth about as much as your tank out of gas on a battlefield. That's why the op has decided to go with a newer lens.

Heck, I would buy a used 1D classic for daytime use if Canon would still service the original "Tank".

Just because canon doesn't service it doesn't mean nobody else fixes them

Mine is over twenty years old and solid as a rock

jjackflash wrote in post #15399388
Just because canon doesn't service it doesn't mean nobody else fixes them

Mine is over twenty years old and solid as a rock

But if you figure in the cost of a repair if it can be done, then the cost may not be worth it especially to someone on a tight budget. I wouldn't be to happy to buy a $700 piece of equipment one day then try to find a repair shop for it the next. Then spend a couple hundred more to have it fixed if possible.

Not disputing old gear isn't great but sometimes it isn't worth the risk to someone on a budget.

Gotcha (:

If it were in good condition optically and cosmetically I'd do it. I've owned the drainpipe (still would if it weren't for the fact that I like to work in the ~5' range and the mfd on the drainpipe is 6') I considered the fact that Canon doesn't service it when I bought it and came to the conclusion that I'd rather have a lens that is built like a tank and less likely to need service than a newer model that might need service sooner. That lens will take whatever you throw at it - it's a beast.