which is better? a second hand EF 80-200mm f/2.8L? the quality someone said its even better than EF 70-200 f/2.8L, however, it's an old lense... EF 70-200 f/4L is light, but doesn't have f/2.8.... For the Sigma AFO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX, it's the third party lense, i don't know its quality good or not, is HSM fast? better than EF 80-200mm f/2.8L? can anyone give me some suggestion? hope anyone discuss about these three lenses

-- Edmond (chakman_yau@yahoo.com), October 08, 2001

Answers

Hi. I think it will help everyone if you will define your interests. Are you interested in candid photography? Sports? Wildlife? Photojournalism? Will you be shooting mostly handheld or tripod?

The focusing speed, maximum aperture and weight of the lens come into play differently depending on how you want to use it.

-- Mark Elam (mjelam51@juno.com), October 08, 2001.

i wanna use it for portrait .... i seldom use it for sports... and i think i would hold it by hand only

-- Edmond (chakman_yau@yahoo.com), October 08, 2001.

My vote would be with the Canon 70-200 F4L. The 80-200 F2.8L is old...maybe it is up to scratch optically, but way behind on AF speed. The HSM isn't AS fast as USM (or so I've heard...read a few threads further down this list also), and you may have compatibility problems with some bodies with the sigma.

The F4L is said by some to be the best of the four mentioned lenses optically. Personally, I'm not sure, but certainly it is extremely impressive, and by all accounts on a par with the 70-200 F2.8L. The F4L is much lighter and cheaper, for no optical loss, other than the stop of light.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

I would vote the 70-200 f/4L. Especially since you're handholding it. This is my personal favorite lens--great optics, light, good zoom range for general use, fast&quiet AF. I think it's good for portraits, as far as the ones I take (nature is a better subject than people for me!)

-- Jeff Hall (halljs@agere.com), October 11, 2001.