Made "from 1989 to 1985" :D Good old Canon, 4 years obsolete when they started making it. I have the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 ED (1st gen push pull zoom) and much like Canon, it is amazing. Just very slow auto focusing. Great review as always man. Love your work.
Not that it makes a big difference IQ-wise, but the "newer" Nikon 80-200 with the zoom ring actually focuses quite quickly, though like the Canon 80-200 it's a bit loud. Still, those screw drive lenses are solid!
The the D version of the push-pull is also pretty quick if someone still likes the push-pull design (like I do) but doesn't want the painfully slow focus of the original. Not as fast as the two-ring, but unlikely to make a huge difference in most cases, and still not as fast as this lens.
I own this lens and keeps me amazed all the time. It just gets better. One thing you forgot to mention, Chris: In the Canon Telephoto zoom lenses category, the only lens to outperform image quality on this "Magic Drainpipe" is the 70-200 2.8 IS II. All other lenses are inferior. Surprising but true.
I still have and use mine. I bought it together with a 20-35 2.8 and a first generation Canon eos 1. I have used it since the early nineties. The focus range choice button broke and I have to use a small screwdriver to change the setting. It is worth it though. The optical quality is unsurpassed against the 70-200 2.8 lenses I have.
@@christopherfrost Same happens with Nikon. AF 80-200 2.8 is actually better than AF 70-200 2.8G. Only bettered by VR II version and not fully. Saturation is still sensational in the old version. How is contrast and saturation in this Canon version? Thanks. Great video as usual.
I have one of these and I use it with my EOS RP. I'm happy to report that it doesn't have the same weird behavior as you were seeing in live view, even with eye AF turned on. It actually focuses noticeably faster than it did on my older DSLR!
Great info Seth, I've got an RP and am looking to add a bit more focal length to my current kit so this lens is something I'm given a lot of consideration to 🤔
@Christian Ketterl It's awesome! I use it for portraits and prefer it to the 85mm f/1.8. It's incredibly sharp and bokeh is good. If you use my contact page at www.sethmoyer.com I'll send you some samples. Actually, the portrait I'm using on my contact page was taken with this lens. :P
@Christian Ketterl not all of the photos on that page were taken with the 80-200, so if you want some specific examples make sure to put in a contact on the form :)
I’d love to see a review of the other two vintage L lenses commonly paired with this one! The 20-35 f2.8 L and the 28-80 f2.8-4 L. Thank you for the great reviews!
I own the 20-35 and I can tell from experience that optically it outperforms the 16-35 f2.8 L mkII. Can't say anything about the mkI, but I heard that it is better than the mkII
I've had my magic drainpipe since the late 90's. It's a fantastic lens! I love it for portrait photography, I actually prefer the bokeh over the modern 70-200 f/2.8L II. Just blows me away how sharp the optics are on this lens, considering its age. Definitely a keeper!
I have had the magic drainpipe for many years and it still works as good as the day i purchased it.It was my first "L" lens.I also have the 70-200f2.8 is usm1 and the 70-200f4 is usm.I did find the f4 version to be sharper.Not everything in photography is about sharpness though and i was pleasantly surprised the drainpipe did so well in the review.A major flaw with this lens though is the Af/M switch and have a tendency to break,and of course the lens can not be serviced or repaired by Canon.My switch broke and it took me two years to find a replacement ,and that was used, from an old camera shop.I would not sell my drainpipe, even though it clunks and is very noisy, the feel of the images it produces are different from the newer versions.Back in the time the drainpipe was made, the glass contained lead.The bokeh seems more creamy and the colours are cooler.At one stage the drainpipe was forgotten about and could be purchased cheaply.I am guessing after this review the price will be going back up again.Yes,this lens is a Gem...Nice review Chris.
Holy, the colors on this are amazing. Someday when I finish my "proper" gear collection, I'm going to buy a 5d Classic, the 28-80 f/2.8-4L, this 80-200 f/2.8L, a 50mm f/1.2, and a 100mm f/2.8 macro, as I hear you can get the colors even sweeter than film from those lens on the Classic.
Hi Chris, just to let you know that I've had this lens for 20 years or so, its worked hard,very hard, (20,000 photos or more) all its life,mainly motorsports. (Dust and cr£p everywhere)but in all that time its only be in for repair once! Not for a breakdown, just to a small bit of fungus to be removed. Finding a repairer for this lens was easy, yes parts are hard to find but there out there, so I have been told. The reason I keep my copy is I find the colour rendition is so much better than the 70-200 f2.8. Focus is a little slower but not to bad.
I'm using this lense recently. It's really amazing lense. It produces great image quality. The color, contrast, sharpness, AF compatibility are all very very good. In addition, it's a really great budget lense. It is competitive with recent L series canon lenses, if it's in good condition.
Awesome video. I have the older 80-200L FD f/4 lens. I recommend trying that out. A real gem in the vintage push/pull zoom lenses. My film pictures come to life with this lens
I had a Canon 80 - 200mm f2.8L, a Canon 50mm f2.8 macro and a Canon 28 - 70mm (?). I used them with my Canon EOS 5 and EOS 10. Although slow by comparison to my current gear, they were all state of the art in the late eighties. The EOS 5 in particular was a brilliant camera. Nikon AF gear at the time was a right bag of nails.
Had this lens and sold it to a freind 15 years ago. Now as a Sony user I am thinking of getting one again for the A7111. The one I sold is still going strong. Great review as ever.
I just bought one. On Post tomorrow. Read a lot about it and it's something Canon ever continued with. Now plastic rules. Metal Drainpipe is a must for L lens fanatics. So I'm really excited about it. It must be crazy well built. According to Ken Rockwell it is a lens that even today beats most 70-200 zoom lenses. I have a EF 70-200mm f/4 L and what I know today this EF 80-200 f/2.8 L gonna be better.
I just recently bumped up to full frame. I bought the Canon EOS R. After the last few firmware updates the camera is amazing. The aai auto focus is now on par with Sony. Even though switch to full frame about four months ago I've yet to sell off all my crop sensor stuff. That's leaving me on a budget for the time being so I purchased this lens. I have to say that I'm very pleased with it. I use it for portraits all the time and I get it amazing shots. The glass is great I have to say and I have no issues with autofocusing. Which I'm sure has quite a bit to do with the Canon EOS R.. every once in awhile I get some reading but other than that I get amazing shots. And for $400 before mint condition 80-200 I have zero complaints.
Had one for many years and it was one of my fav lenses, then sold it when I switched to ML (it wasn’t playing that nice with the MC-11), but somehow always missed it. Just rebought one now to use it with the 1Dx I (re)bought in the meantime, a match made in heaven for me 😊
A wonderful review of a classic lens. Sadly, my copy AGAIN has lost its AF switch (the very first time I took the lens out of the case, the AF switch tumbled into the grass, never to be seen again. Three replacements later...) I could immediately tell which slides on my light table (dating myself) were shot with this lens: the colors are snappier than the normal lenses. Despite this Achilles heel the lens IS superb optically. Arguably it is also my best lens in infrared -- better than the 70-200mm replacements, which I've tested. The biggest drawbacks are it is "weather sealed" but doesn't have a mount gasket; can't take the Canon teleconverters; and weighs a ton! So I invested in its stablemate, the Canon EF 100-300mm 5.6L. This lens is at least as good, and you should review it! I got it because it was more portable and I alternate using one or the other. I did pick up the super rare EF 50-200mm 3.5-4.5L -- and no, not a typo! -- as it was a bit faster than the 100-300 yet smaller than the 80-200. Sadly, it's T-stop (light transmission) is low so no real benefit, except for its painterly bokeh! But it is super rare and you are unlikely to find one. But if you want a rare treat...!
I’ve considered selling this lens after buying last year (thanks to this review), but everytime I put it on my camera, it’s like magic. I also speedboost it on my GH5, and I’ve had amazing results using manual focus for video, and at F2, generally stopping down slightly to improve the image. It matches well with my FD lenses being from a similar era. Thanks for the review, it was a game changer!
I am so happy I got this lens. I actually found it locally at the equivalent of about 190 £. I wasn't familiar with it before hand, but figured that for the price it was probably a good buy. And boy did it deliver. It produces such beautiful images, and it's a joy to use. It's in great condition too, a few minor nicks on the outside, but the insides are as good as ever.
Love this lens. Got it second hand and get for video. Saved me from spending almost 1k or more on a 70-200! Cost around 310 which was good although more used than the example here. For sharpness it isn’t as good as modern lenses but might be my version. Overall I think it’s a steal if your doing video. Oh yes it’s built like a tank. I actually love the flaring it gives. Thanks for the review I had been waiting for one for ages. Thanks!!!!
You told it great. Finally someone showed him well and your accent fits perfectly into the class of this lens ;-) I love this lens. I bought my copy after 10 years of hunting. I don't like Canon white teleons. It always attracts people's attention. It has great contrast, color, quality of workmanship. Note the AF because there is no real manual option. It is controlled by an internal engine. When it breaks, there will be no AF and MF. I had a problem with focus on Ds mk2. There is a very shallow depth of field and I have the impression that on 2.8 it catches focus closer. I did not check the 6D mk2 because I also have the Tamron G2. As if Tamron was as finished as Canon would be perfect.
Great Review Chris! Would be awesome to learn how that 80-200 or other lenses perform on A7RII in terms of AF. Maybe add this one segment? Just a look at the back screen would suffice and it would be enormously valuable for people who are looking for cheaper glass to adapt to Sony cameras.
The colour rendition looks so good too. I still have a couple of lenses from that period that I now use on M43, and they yield pretty amazing results even now!
definitely was waiting for this video. ive had my eyes on one for a while and wasnt sure if i should get it or not. Thanks for uploading. im definitely picking up one of these lenses
This lens seems to be a better upgrade alternative than the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens than my current telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6.
I have loved! that lens in my early days as a young wanna-be-photographer. Along with its 20-35 counterpart I have truly enjoyed taking them, sometimes through the roughest environments. Back in the days I did enjoy its sharpness, but I really didn't think it would prove this sharp on a modern 42Mpix sensor !! Bravo Canon. And thanks a lot Chris for this test! 😊 Now please... the 20-35/2.8 ??... 😬😉 That one would be way-way-way less sharp... 🫣😁
Whoever is interested in getting it, bare in mind that this lens is no longer supported by Canon and it is nearly impossible to find spare parts or anyone willing to fix it. My copy most probably has a broken flex cable and it only works at f/2.8 (I get an error if I change the aperture). Still brilliant at f/2.8 though. From my experience, sharpness is essentially on par with the latest 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II @f/2.8, however it lacks contrast, the coatings are outdated - you need to watch out for that flare. Also, AF is obviously not as fast and the lens is not suitable for certain situations where AF noise might be an issue (it's not too bad for photos though).
More megapixels will make the image look sharper, not less sharp, unless it's a crop pixel by pixel, 1:1. But if you frame the image using all the megapixels, when you compress them down to the 8 megapixels of a 4x video, or less, softness will be reduced to some degree.
Awsome Chris, thanks for this review. It was perfect timing as I've been considering this to go with my A7iii. I can't stretch to a sony 70-200 and to be honest I really don't like the Beacon white lenses!
I’ve got a magic drain pipe mine looks to have been used every day there’s not a spot on the lens that’s not got a dent or a scratch yet the Performance and image quality is fantastic there built like tanks if your looking for one make sure there’s no fungus as these lenses seem to be prone more then other also check the switches as they have a tendency to jam and it costs a fortune to fix
I had it back in the days, it was an amazing lens! I switched it for a used 70-200 non-IS (the 1995 one you also have) just because i wanted to use extenders (...and because the friend the bought me the 800-200 paid it more then i spent on the white one 😀but i was lucky in the purchase over eBay, the guy the sold it to me went for "i bought it but it's too heavy! I'm gonna buy the f4 version which is lighter" and sold it really underpriced, could'nt belive my luck), otherwise i would still have it nowdays probably (as i still have the 70-200 non-IS which is beautiful)
very nice video for one of the best tele zoom lenses ever for it's age . i am looking very much your great reviews and i kind of like older lenses in contrary to todays which are more clinical and tend to lose microcontrast although more resolving . the older lenses have a pop like looking through the glass , newer tend to look like you see through plastic ....
damn where did u find this lens>>>> nice find!!! i got the 70-300 usm ii (your review helped) think this lens fits in the need still? that fast aperture is enticing
Thinking about picking one up as a versatile zoom for astrophotography. Can't find many comparisons between this and the 70-200mm F4 to see if that is much sharper.
I also had one for my 7D and the only thing I was missing was the IS since with such a high focal length, even having a stabilized viewfinder is nice. Be careful with the AF/MF switch though, these tend to break quite often and while you still can find some spare switches online, I'd avoid this adventure :) Other than that, the lens is highly addictive and pricewise a no-brainer for telephoto zooms on a budget. I bought mine from a theatre photographer that imported it 1989 from Japan and it was still in mint condition, including the hard shell case that it was shipped with (with nice red inner coating :)). Unfortunately I had to sell it with my Canon gear since it was in no way usable with manual focus and there were no proper adapters for E-Mount back then.
Great reviews Christopher! There's just one little problem I'm having with the latest ones. You seem to be using that commlite EF to E mount adapter. I bought one too when I first got my A7r II and sold it as soon as possible. Let me tell you, it's full of flaws. First of all, the adapter doesn't have the proper flange distance. A lens with floating elements will not perform the way it would on its native camera system. Also that adapter creates huge amounts of flaring due to its plastic interieur. At least a couple of years ago, they didn't have that suede coating like the Metabones IV or Sigma MC-11 have. You should definetely get one of the latter ones. Otherwise I wouldn't know whether a lens' soft edges come from design or because of that adapter. ;) Cheers and take care.
These old canon lenses are very impressive, my main telephoto is an EF 70-200 2.8 USM 'L' made in 1995, it's the proof that glass never goes out of date, it's a little soft at infinity focus but still gets fantastic quality images if you focus on something nearer or stop it down, not to mention i got a great deal on it because the barrel is scratched and worn but the lenses structure and glass is still perfect, contrast that to the 90's sigma i had, that thing had problems, some serious soft focus and the motor occasionally emitted this really obnoxious shrill squeak. BTW what brand is your clerical collar shirt?
I used to own this lens before getting my EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, ended up selling this one as it's quite terrible in focussing in low light situation. And the colour rendering weren't accurate in my copy for some reason and had massive loss of contrast too. Wasn't happy with it at all.
I have an EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 II IS USM. It was a steal on eBay and after two years it hasn't disappointed. I thought about this lens but decided to pass.
Hi Chris, love your videos! I would like to watch a review of some ultra macro lenses, like the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x or the Laowa 25mm 2.5-5x that will be released soon, i think.
Hi Chris, thanks a lot for this review! Have you planned to review the vintage Canon EF 2.8-4.0/28-80 mm L USM and the Canon EF 2.8/20-35 mm L, too? Best wishes, Ralf
I guess I really would like to buy this lens but it's just to heavy. I would be fine by a lower aperture like F4 or something similar if this lens can be a lot lighter weight and other than that just the same awesome quality. But maybe than it will just be really similar to the the canon EF 70-200 f4 lens
The Tamron lens is weather sealed, has better coatings, focuses WAY quieter, has rounded aperture blades (and 9 of them vs. 8), focuses about twice as close (probably in part to counter the focus breathing at close distances), has image stabilization, and you could actually get it repaired by Tamron if something breaks. Depends on how much you care about those things whether spending the extra money would be worth it.
The correct tripod collar for the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 is the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A(B). It is the same as the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A(W) used on the EF 70-200mm f/4 except it is black.
Nice video , i have to test this at my A7rii, maybe i must not buy the G Master 70 200 - because, my dad has this lense. He used this often on a EOS 5D MK II.
Hi Cris! First of all - thank you for your wonderful videos!!! And I have a question. I have this lens and now want to buy Sony a7 ii. Which adapter do you use? May be you can advise me which adapter is better to use?
Made "from 1989 to 1985" :D
Good old Canon, 4 years obsolete when they started making it.
I have the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 ED (1st gen push pull zoom) and much like Canon, it is amazing. Just very slow auto focusing.
Great review as always man. Love your work.
yea he made me confused !
It's so good, it traveled back in time!
Not that it makes a big difference IQ-wise, but the "newer" Nikon 80-200 with the zoom ring actually focuses quite quickly, though like the Canon 80-200 it's a bit loud. Still, those screw drive lenses are solid!
The the D version of the push-pull is also pretty quick if someone still likes the push-pull design (like I do) but doesn't want the painfully slow focus of the original. Not as fast as the two-ring, but unlikely to make a huge difference in most cases, and still not as fast as this lens.
I can't believe I made such a mistake, right at the beginning of the video, too! Of course - 1989-1995.
I own this lens and keeps me amazed all the time. It just gets better. One thing you forgot to mention, Chris: In the Canon Telephoto zoom lenses category, the only lens to outperform image quality on this "Magic Drainpipe" is the 70-200 2.8 IS II. All other lenses are inferior. Surprising but true.
I think you're right!
Well, I think you grossly underestimate 70-200 f4L trio, especially stabilized Mk2 variant.
I still have and use mine. I bought it together with a 20-35 2.8 and a first generation Canon eos 1. I have used it since the early nineties. The focus range choice button broke and I have to use a small screwdriver to change the setting. It is worth it though. The optical quality is unsurpassed against the 70-200 2.8 lenses I have.
@@christopherfrost Same happens with Nikon. AF 80-200 2.8 is actually better than AF 70-200 2.8G. Only bettered by VR II version and not fully. Saturation is still sensational in the old version. How is contrast and saturation in this Canon version? Thanks. Great video as usual.
I have one of these and I use it with my EOS RP. I'm happy to report that it doesn't have the same weird behavior as you were seeing in live view, even with eye AF turned on. It actually focuses noticeably faster than it did on my older DSLR!
Great info Seth, I've got an RP and am looking to add a bit more focal length to my current kit so this lens is something I'm given a lot of consideration to 🤔
@Christian Ketterl It's awesome! I use it for portraits and prefer it to the 85mm f/1.8. It's incredibly sharp and bokeh is good. If you use my contact page at www.sethmoyer.com I'll send you some samples. Actually, the portrait I'm using on my contact page was taken with this lens. :P
@Christian Ketterl not all of the photos on that page were taken with the 80-200, so if you want some specific examples make sure to put in a contact on the form :)
Does it work with eye-af?
@@PeacePham1991 yes, it works well! Obviously not quite as fast as the newest ones
I’d love to see a review of the other two vintage L lenses commonly paired with this one! The 20-35 f2.8 L and the 28-80 f2.8-4 L. Thank you for the great reviews!
I own the 20-35 and I can tell from experience that optically it outperforms the 16-35 f2.8 L mkII. Can't say anything about the mkI, but I heard that it is better than the mkII
I've had my magic drainpipe since the late 90's. It's a fantastic lens! I love it for portrait photography, I actually prefer the bokeh over the modern 70-200 f/2.8L II. Just blows me away how sharp the optics are on this lens, considering its age. Definitely a keeper!
I have had the magic drainpipe for many years and it still works as good as the day i purchased it.It was my first "L" lens.I also have the 70-200f2.8 is usm1 and the 70-200f4 is usm.I did find the f4 version to be sharper.Not everything in photography is about sharpness though and i was pleasantly surprised the drainpipe did so well in the review.A major flaw with this lens though is the Af/M switch and have a tendency to break,and of course the lens can not be serviced or repaired by Canon.My switch broke and it took me two years to find a replacement ,and that was used, from an old camera shop.I would not sell my drainpipe, even though it clunks and is very noisy, the feel of the images it produces are different from the newer versions.Back in the time the drainpipe was made, the glass contained lead.The bokeh seems more creamy and the colours are cooler.At one stage the drainpipe was forgotten about and could be purchased cheaply.I am guessing after this review the price will be going back up again.Yes,this lens is a Gem...Nice review Chris.
The autofocus sounds like a race car differential lol
The sexiest thing i've ever known lol
Holy, the colors on this are amazing. Someday when I finish my "proper" gear collection, I'm going to buy a 5d Classic, the 28-80 f/2.8-4L, this 80-200 f/2.8L, a 50mm f/1.2, and a 100mm f/2.8 macro, as I hear you can get the colors even sweeter than film from those lens on the Classic.
I would think twice before buying 28-80 and 80-200. Repair risk when you won't get any spare part is way too great.
I have the 5D Classic and 6D Classic and just one photo I'm blown away by the results.
Hi Chris, just to let you know that I've had this lens for 20 years or so, its worked hard,very hard, (20,000 photos or more) all its life,mainly motorsports. (Dust and cr£p everywhere)but in all that time its only be in for repair once! Not for a breakdown, just to a small bit of fungus to be removed. Finding a repairer for this lens was easy, yes parts are hard to find but there out there, so I have been told. The reason I keep my copy is I find the colour rendition is so much better than the 70-200 f2.8. Focus is a little slower but not to bad.
Ah! It was you that outbid me on this particular unit! Happy shooting :P
Is that so? Damn, at least he got a good copy to showcase, hope you find a good deal later ;)
Steve yeah! Haha
I'm using this lense recently.
It's really amazing lense. It produces great image quality. The color, contrast, sharpness, AF compatibility are all very very good.
In addition, it's a really great budget lense.
It is competitive with recent L series canon lenses, if it's in good condition.
It really is great I think :-)
i want to see this drainpipe getting revisited with eos r5, curious to see how it performs in terms of autofocus
Awesome video. I have the older 80-200L FD f/4 lens. I recommend trying that out. A real gem in the vintage push/pull zoom lenses. My film pictures come to life with this lens
I had a Canon 80 - 200mm f2.8L, a Canon 50mm f2.8 macro and a Canon 28 - 70mm (?). I used them with my Canon EOS 5 and EOS 10. Although slow by comparison to my current gear, they were all state of the art in the late eighties. The EOS 5 in particular was a brilliant camera. Nikon AF gear at the time was a right bag of nails.
Had this lens and sold it to a freind 15 years ago. Now as a Sony user I am thinking of getting one again for the A7111. The one I sold is still going strong. Great review as ever.
I just bought one. On Post tomorrow. Read a lot about it and it's something Canon ever continued with. Now plastic rules. Metal Drainpipe is a must for L lens fanatics. So I'm really excited about it. It must be crazy well built. According to Ken Rockwell it is a lens that even today beats most 70-200 zoom lenses. I have a EF 70-200mm f/4 L and what I know today this EF 80-200 f/2.8 L gonna be better.
I just recently bumped up to full frame. I bought the Canon EOS R. After the last few firmware updates the camera is amazing. The aai auto focus is now on par with Sony. Even though switch to full frame about four months ago I've yet to sell off all my crop sensor stuff. That's leaving me on a budget for the time being so I purchased this lens. I have to say that I'm very pleased with it. I use it for portraits all the time and I get it amazing shots. The glass is great I have to say and I have no issues with autofocusing. Which I'm sure has quite a bit to do with the Canon EOS R.. every once in awhile I get some reading but other than that I get amazing shots. And for $400 before mint condition 80-200 I have zero complaints.
I have one and I love it. No IS, so I mostly use it from a tripod.
*1989-1995 fix
Had one for many years and it was one of my fav lenses, then sold it when I switched to ML (it wasn’t playing that nice with the MC-11), but somehow always missed it. Just rebought one now to use it with the 1Dx I (re)bought in the meantime, a match made in heaven for me 😊
Excellent review once again Christopher. God bless & you and your wife have a blessed Sunday.
A wonderful review of a classic lens. Sadly, my copy AGAIN has lost its AF switch (the very first time I took the lens out of the case, the AF switch tumbled into the grass, never to be seen again. Three replacements later...) I could immediately tell which slides on my light table (dating myself) were shot with this lens: the colors are snappier than the normal lenses. Despite this Achilles heel the lens IS superb optically. Arguably it is also my best lens in infrared -- better than the 70-200mm replacements, which I've tested. The biggest drawbacks are it is "weather sealed" but doesn't have a mount gasket; can't take the Canon teleconverters; and weighs a ton!
So I invested in its stablemate, the Canon EF 100-300mm 5.6L. This lens is at least as good, and you should review it! I got it because it was more portable and I alternate using one or the other. I did pick up the super rare EF 50-200mm 3.5-4.5L -- and no, not a typo! -- as it was a bit faster than the 100-300 yet smaller than the 80-200. Sadly, it's T-stop (light transmission) is low so no real benefit, except for its painterly bokeh! But it is super rare and you are unlikely to find one. But if you want a rare treat...!
I’ve considered selling this lens after buying last year (thanks to this review), but everytime I put it on my camera, it’s like magic. I also speedboost it on my GH5, and I’ve had amazing results using manual focus for video, and at F2, generally stopping down slightly to improve the image. It matches well with my FD lenses being from a similar era. Thanks for the review, it was a game changer!
I am so happy I got this lens. I actually found it locally at the equivalent of about 190 £. I wasn't familiar with it before hand, but figured that for the price it was probably a good buy. And boy did it deliver. It produces such beautiful images, and it's a joy to use. It's in great condition too, a few minor nicks on the outside, but the insides are as good as ever.
Your portrait in blue is just...phenomenal.
Love this lens. Got it second hand and get for video. Saved me from spending almost 1k or more on a 70-200! Cost around 310 which was good although more used than the example here. For sharpness it isn’t as good as modern lenses but might be my version. Overall I think it’s a steal if your doing video. Oh yes it’s built like a tank. I actually love the flaring it gives. Thanks for the review I had been waiting for one for ages. Thanks!!!!
I really appreciate your reviews, they are just a pleasure to watch. Thank you very much!
Well after this review price will be increased. Excelent review!
You told it great. Finally someone showed him well and your accent fits perfectly into the class of this lens ;-) I love this lens. I bought my copy after 10 years of hunting. I don't like Canon white teleons. It always attracts people's attention. It has great contrast, color, quality of workmanship. Note the AF because there is no real manual option. It is controlled by an internal engine. When it breaks, there will be no AF and MF. I had a problem with focus on Ds mk2. There is a very shallow depth of field and I have the impression that on 2.8 it catches focus closer. I did not check the 6D mk2 because I also have the Tamron G2. As if Tamron was as finished as Canon would be perfect.
I saw the lens for the first time. Thanks Christopher for showing the very rare lens from canon.
What a stellar review. Thanks so much, Christopher.
Great Review Chris! Would be awesome to learn how that 80-200 or other lenses perform on A7RII in terms of AF. Maybe add this one segment? Just a look at the back screen would suffice and it would be enormously valuable for people who are looking for cheaper glass to adapt to Sony cameras.
It depends which adaptor you're using I'm afraid - different lenses perform differently
The one you're using would interest a lot of people, including me, as it is pretty affordable :)
It has an excellent sibling, the mini-Magic Drainpipe, EF 28-80mm f2.8-4 L.
The colour rendition looks so good too. I still have a couple of lenses from that period that I now use on M43, and they yield pretty amazing results even now!
Tamron SP AF 70-210mm f / 2.8 LD, also a great lens
One of my favorite lenses of all time.
definitely was waiting for this video. ive had my eyes on one for a while and wasnt sure if i should get it or not. Thanks for uploading. im definitely picking up one of these lenses
Would love to see the voigtlander 40mm f1.2 for Sony E
This lens seems to be a better upgrade alternative than the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens than my current telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6.
Just bought this lens today used 😂😂. It's crazy sharp on my Canon 80D 🤣. Thank you for making buy this lens 😊
Hey! I have the exact same combo, but I noticed that at 200mm the sharpness is not great at all. What is your experience?
I do concert photography and absoutely HATE that my 70-200 f2.8 is white. would consider this. does anyone know how the AF is in dark conditions?
I have loved! that lens in my early days as a young wanna-be-photographer. Along with its 20-35 counterpart I have truly enjoyed taking them, sometimes through the roughest environments.
Back in the days I did enjoy its sharpness, but I really didn't think it would prove this sharp on a modern 42Mpix sensor !! Bravo Canon.
And thanks a lot Chris for this test! 😊
Now please... the 20-35/2.8 ??... 😬😉
That one would be way-way-way less sharp... 🫣😁
I found one of this in a pawn shop in Mexico for only 50 US dlls, and i´m surprise how it works i really love it.
The people are complaining about you doing Sony Mirrorless lenses but I hope you do more.
damn. almost as good as my 70-200 mkII for 1/3 the used price! WOW. I might have to pick one up as a backup lens. for what I shoot IS does not matter.
Whoever is interested in getting it, bare in mind that this lens is no longer supported by Canon and it is nearly impossible to find spare parts or anyone willing to fix it. My copy most probably has a broken flex cable and it only works at f/2.8 (I get an error if I change the aperture). Still brilliant at f/2.8 though. From my experience, sharpness is essentially on par with the latest 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II @f/2.8, however it lacks contrast, the coatings are outdated - you need to watch out for that flare. Also, AF is obviously not as fast and the lens is not suitable for certain situations where AF noise might be an issue (it's not too bad for photos though).
My first L series Canon lens, will shoot till the elements fall out.
I was lucky to get EF 80-200 in 1990. It is still magical.
Thanks. Your lens overviews are excellent
oh, I am looking for one of those... can't say i'd use it too much, but a nice tool in my arsenal.
More megapixels will make the image look sharper, not less sharp, unless it's a crop pixel by pixel, 1:1. But if you frame the image using all the megapixels, when you compress them down to the 8 megapixels of a 4x video, or less, softness will be reduced to some degree.
Does anyone know if this will fit a canon rebel T3i?
Awsome Chris, thanks for this review. It was perfect timing as I've been considering this to go with my A7iii. I can't stretch to a sony 70-200 and to be honest I really don't like the Beacon white lenses!
I was wishing this review since forever! thanks Chris! :)
I’ve got a magic drain pipe mine looks to have been used every day there’s not a spot on the lens that’s not got a dent or a scratch yet the Performance and image quality is fantastic there built like tanks if your looking for one make sure there’s no fungus as these lenses seem to be prone more then other also check the switches as they have a tendency to jam and it costs a fortune to fix
This lens vs. a new 70-200 would be sweet!
I had it back in the days, it was an amazing lens! I switched it for a used 70-200 non-IS (the 1995 one you also have) just because i wanted to use extenders (...and because the friend the bought me the 800-200 paid it more then i spent on the white one 😀but i was lucky in the purchase over eBay, the guy the sold it to me went for "i bought it but it's too heavy! I'm gonna buy the f4 version which is lighter" and sold it really underpriced, could'nt belive my luck), otherwise i would still have it nowdays probably (as i still have the 70-200 non-IS which is beautiful)
very nice video for one of the best tele zoom lenses ever for it's age .
i am looking very much your great reviews and i kind of like older lenses in contrary to todays which are more clinical and tend to lose microcontrast although more resolving . the older lenses have a pop like looking through the glass , newer tend to look like you see through plastic ....
the kliksphilip of photography
Your reviews are the best. Thank you
I love this lens on my Sony A7iii. Unfortunately the AF just decided to die. Pretty sad month as its my favorite lens.
What adapter do you use? I have an mc11 and an a6400
damn where did u find this lens>>>> nice find!!! i got the 70-300 usm ii (your review helped) think this lens fits in the need still? that fast aperture is enticing
You turned me off at "struggling in live view" :P
Good review, as usual !
Thinking about picking one up as a versatile zoom for astrophotography. Can't find many comparisons between this and the 70-200mm F4 to see if that is much sharper.
I am using one in my Eos RP instead of a 70-200 for cost reasons. Basically got my Eos RP body for free.
I also had one for my 7D and the only thing I was missing was the IS since with such a high focal length, even having a stabilized viewfinder is nice.
Be careful with the AF/MF switch though, these tend to break quite often and while you still can find some spare switches online, I'd avoid this adventure :) Other than that, the lens is highly addictive and pricewise a no-brainer for telephoto zooms on a budget.
I bought mine from a theatre photographer that imported it 1989 from Japan and it was still in mint condition, including the hard shell case that it was shipped with (with nice red inner coating :)).
Unfortunately I had to sell it with my Canon gear since it was in no way usable with manual focus and there were no proper adapters for E-Mount back then.
Nice review and really nice lense from canon they must make the new telephoto lens in black colour!
Cool review- I wasn't even aware that this lens existed. Thanks.
BTW: Have you been ordained? If so, congratulations!
..Joe
Yup :-)
Great reviews Christopher! There's just one little problem I'm having with the latest ones. You seem to be using that commlite EF to E mount adapter. I bought one too when I first got my A7r II and sold it as soon as possible. Let me tell you, it's full of flaws. First of all, the adapter doesn't have the proper flange distance. A lens with floating elements will not perform the way it would on its native camera system. Also that adapter creates huge amounts of flaring due to its plastic interieur. At least a couple of years ago, they didn't have that suede coating like the Metabones IV or Sigma MC-11 have. You should definetely get one of the latter ones. Otherwise I wouldn't know whether a lens' soft edges come from design or because of that adapter. ;)
Cheers and take care.
These old canon lenses are very impressive, my main telephoto is an EF 70-200 2.8 USM 'L' made in 1995, it's the proof that glass never goes out of date, it's a little soft at infinity focus but still gets fantastic quality images if you focus on something nearer or stop it down, not to mention i got a great deal on it because the barrel is scratched and worn but the lenses structure and glass is still perfect, contrast that to the 90's sigma i had, that thing had problems, some serious soft focus and the motor occasionally emitted this really obnoxious shrill squeak.
BTW what brand is your clerical collar shirt?
I used to own this lens before getting my EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, ended up selling this one as it's quite terrible in focussing in low light situation. And the colour rendering weren't accurate in my copy for some reason and had massive loss of contrast too. Wasn't happy with it at all.
Best lens for portrait !!
I have an EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 II IS USM. It was a steal on eBay and after two years it hasn't disappointed. I thought about this lens but decided to pass.
Im amazed with this lens
Hi Chris, love your videos! I would like to watch a review of some ultra macro lenses, like the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x or the Laowa 25mm 2.5-5x that will be released soon, i think.
a pleasure to view :) sadly it is too heavy
How about autofocus on FE mounts?
could you tell how it performs mounted in a Sony a7r3 with a metabone adapter?
Great testing, why not translating it with a score like DXO (?), you might become a world wide reference.
please make a review on new tamron 70-210 f4
Hi Chris, thanks a lot for this review! Have you planned to review the vintage Canon EF 2.8-4.0/28-80 mm L USM and the Canon EF 2.8/20-35 mm L, too? Best wishes, Ralf
Not really. I would like to but I don't have the time
1999-1985? 😯... And I'm using headphone... But nice content on this one... Thanks☺🙏🙏
Please. Do the new Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 FE mount lens review!
would you recommend this lens for sports photography?
89 - 85 ?
4
Love your reviews ♥♥
I'd heard people refer to the magic drainpipe, but I never knew what it actually was. Thanks for this video!
I guess I really would like to buy this lens but it's just to heavy. I would be fine by a lower aperture like F4 or something similar if this lens can be a lot lighter weight and other than that just the same awesome quality. But maybe than it will just be really similar to the the canon EF 70-200 f4 lens
Looking forward to the sony sel70300g review!
Would you please do a review on the Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD Lens. Since it feels like a good travel lens for me.
wow that's some superb IQ. SUPERB!!!!
Magic drainpipe or tamron 70-200mm G2?🤔
The Tamron lens is weather sealed, has better coatings, focuses WAY quieter, has rounded aperture blades (and 9 of them vs. 8), focuses about twice as close (probably in part to counter the focus breathing at close distances), has image stabilization, and you could actually get it repaired by Tamron if something breaks.
Depends on how much you care about those things whether spending the extra money would be worth it.
Very interesting. It doesn't even look that dated, very modern, in fact.
How can I acquire a tripod collar for this model? I bought it recently and it doesn't have one. btw, great video! Thanks! Excellent lens!!!
The correct tripod collar for the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 is the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A(B). It is the same as the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A(W) used on the EF 70-200mm f/4 except it is black.
Nice video , i have to test this at my A7rii, maybe i must not buy the G Master 70 200 - because, my dad has this lense. He used this often on a EOS 5D MK II.
It's a testament to the over engineering this lens went through, that it performs like that on a high megapixel camera today.
Hi Cris! First of all - thank you for your wonderful videos!!! And I have a question. I have this lens and now want to buy Sony a7 ii. Which adapter do you use? May be you can advise me which adapter is better to use?
I used a very cheap Commlite adaptor and it didn't work too well I'm afraid. I haven't tested it with other adaptors I'm afraid
A great lens from the film era.
Great review
This old dude 80-200 was called "King of warm light"