70-200/f2.8 L vs 80-200/f2.8 L - Differences?

Hi,

I recently saw some used 80-200/f2.8 L lenses in mint condition advertised for about $ 550,- That looks like a good deal to me.

If you look at the newer model, the 70-200 L, you'll get the used f4.0 L version for about the same price, the f/2.8 (non-IS) is a lot more expensive.

What's the difference in the lenses?
Is the newer version so much better than the earlier one to warrant the higher resale price?
Or is it just the white colour of the new version showing it's an 'L' lens from far?

So the question to those who have experience with one or both of these lenses - which lens would be the better deal? I'd rather take the 2.8 over the 4.0, if the rest is not too different (a no-brainer, isn't it?)

Regards,
Andy

This might be of some help:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/70-200is.shtml

Scott

Mabe this image will help. 70-200 non IS handheld.

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/21789527

Paul

Scott, Paul,

thanks for the links!

However - my question is ... can I do that as well with the older 80-200??

I don't see a good reason why it shouldn't be possible - and for less money

Or is the price difference because any used 80-200 lens will be older than a used 70-200 (non-is) f/2.8 lens?

Regards,
Andy

Maybe this will help. Bob Atkins says it is better than Sigma 70-200mm.

http://www.photo.net/c​anon/80-200L

Lightandlife,

thanks for the link!

so to summarize the report...

- image quality as 70-200 f/2.8
- Canon Teleconverters can't be used
- no full manual focus
- no USM, though fast and silent

... and a lot cheaper than the 70-200!

I'm gonna keep an eye on ebay for that lens ...

Regards,
Andy