i have a dilemma.

i can get a 80-200 f2.8L for 750$ canadian.

i can get a 70-200 f2.8L for 1,150$ can.

im getting one of these to compliment my 24-70L.

some considerations:

if i get the 80-200, i will still have a budget for a decent flash and some extra cash.
80-200 is kinda old...its around 10 years old..or less. canon doesnt make parts for it now, so if it breaks down, i have to find a broken one to salvage parts.

if i get the 70-200, that's all im getting...ill be pushing my budget to the limit, but it's ok.and might as well sell the 24-70L as it would me my main lens anyway.

im stumped...i've ben reading the forums and reviews about this lens. no question about the performance because they are almost at par (excet for the af which is a little bit faster in the 70-200). so performance is NOT the question.

i want to know your opinion from those who had experiences with these lenses...especially the 80-200.

thanks a bunch!

edit: here are the pics of the actual 80-200:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v409/MarkFaulkner/Canon%2080-200L/

manufacturing date is sept 1993 (UH0905)

Well if it was me, I'd get the 70-200 2.8L. I'm not too sure if the 80-200 2.8 is as good as the newer model.

You could check the MTF charts here - http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_80200_28/index.htm

For me, I'd rather choose the 70-200 considering the factors that you mentioned especially in terms of age (it might break anytime) - and you'll find yourself spending too much to fix the 80-200.

If you're planning to sell your 24-70L, you may want to grab a 17-85 EF-S... but you will lose the "L"...

HOw did you know that , Canon cannot fix the old 80-700 if it breaks down?

70-200 imho...

HOw did you know that , Canon cannot fix the old 80-700 if it breaks down?

i've been asking canon techs here in north america and the 48 states.

i also read in several reviews, forums and websites that canon don't service this lens anymore...

darn. im so torn.

I,m sorry ,I meant to type the 80-200 L not 80-700.

IF I were you, I'd save up for the 70-200.

thanks for the inputs guys...tomorrow's the day i will decide...ill choose the better deal...

70-200mm f/2.8 L: drool drool.....

i might get the 80-200 instead...gave me a deal i couldnt resist....

I had both, and if I were you, I'd choose the 70-200 than the 80-200. The white lens has USM and that in itself is worth the extra money. If you like taking action shots or candid shots with your telephoto, then the 70-200 is head and shoulders above the magic drainpipe. If you feel that you need a lens that focuses faster, the 70-200 is the better buy. The black lens hunts too when the lighting isn't too ideal.

My 80-200 2.8's zoom ring got stuck at 80mm once and it took almost 3 months for a tech (outside of Canon) from Picture City (Mike Santos) to fix it. Parts are indeed hard to find.

thanks for the input al neri. i might have to settle for the 80-200 for now. im saving up for the 70-200IS instead.

do you still have the 80-200 now?

hi guys..got the 80-200.

test shots are here: http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?p=43074#post43074

get the 70-200...and have the extra on the wide end...while the white lens have more appeal to the eye.

thanks for the input al neri. i might have to settle for the 80-200 for now. im saving up for the 70-200IS instead.

do you still have the 80-200 now?

I'm so sorry for the late reply, Glenn. Nope, I don't have the lens with me anymore. It broke down at a very bad time. I needed a tele-zoom then so I had to buy the 70-200 non-IS. I had it fixed and sold it afterwards since I really liked the white lens better. Don't get me wrong though. The magic drainpipe is a superb lens for its price nowadays. You'll definitely get your money's worth with it. Enjoy!

Wow great shots from the 80-200!