Canon 80-200 2.8 Is this a good lens?

I really want a 70-200 2.8 IS but I cant right now. is the 80-200 a good lens? What is a good price for it? $650?

the 80-200 2.8 is a nice lens. but id reccomend spending a little more for the 70-200 2.8 sigma. should have equal or better image quality, and faster focusing.

It is a terrific lens, and some say it has better sharpness than the newer 70-200 f2.8s. I have one because it is black, and lighter in weight than the 70-200 f2.8s.

The downside is that any copy of an 80-200 f2.8L is ten years old or more, and Canon Service no longer supports it - so if it breaks or wears out, you could be stuck.

$650 is a good price for a good example.

Have Fun,

It's still a great lens. The only problem is that if it were to ever crap out on you, you're going to have a very hard time finding a place to repair it for you.

You also cannot use TCs on it if you thought about doing that (as you can with the 70-200s)

Well if the sigma 70-200 2.8 is the same quality and faster focusin than thats what I will need. Will this be an ok lens for sports? What is a good price for it?

http://cgi.ebay.com …ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcm​dZViewItem

is This a good deal?

that particular lens is an older version. replaced by the DG version, and now the DG macro. the main difference is the older has different lens coatings. some people will tell you they make no difference, some people say they make a lot of difference. doesnt seem like the most well cared for lens, but not a bad deal either. id perfer to find a newer one, in better condition, with the hood and whatnot, and pay a bit more.

?How much is a hood and lens cap for that lens? What does DG stand for? Why is the new one Macro?? its not used for close ups right?

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2063907
the 80-200 2.8 is a nice lens. but id reccomend spending a little more for the 70-200 2.8 sigma. should have equal or better image quality, and faster focusing.

the sigma is sharper? i say no way!

Photolistic wrote in post #2064013
http://cgi.ebay.com …ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcm​dZViewItem

is This a good deal?

WOW for that price...I would get it...you can get the lens hoods for around 30 bucks probably.
I just bought a used DG version off someone today and paid 670 for it

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2063907
the 70-200 2.8 sigma. should have equal or better image quality, and faster focusing.

Is this personal experience or hearsay?
Faster focussing I'm willing to believe....

Yeah, focusing maybe....sharpness, doubtful. I posted this in another thread a little while ago, but it's fair to show it again 100% crop of swan with 80-200L:

BryanP wrote in post #2063925
You also cannot use TCs on it if you thought about doing that (as you can with the 70-200s)

You can use most teleconverters (except Canon original!!!). I use Kenko:s 1.4x PRO300 and it it doing a good job. However, you should stay away from cheaper models and pre-DG versions.

I've been using my 80-200 for about a year and I like it a lot, I have found only a few minor drawbacks:

1) It uses 72mm filters, unlike most other L lenses that use 77mm.
2) It's heavy. (However, someone here said the 70-200 was even heavier, I think we need to check the figures on this one.)

80-200L is about the same weight as the 70-200L. The 70-200L IS is noticably heavier.

check out photozone.de, they tested it. Seems soft at f2.8 and markedly sharper stopped down. I'd probably go for a Sigma 70-200 non macro instead, for about the same price you can get it new with a 4 year warranty for a US model.