Canon 80-200mm f/4 Two-Ring Zoom. Pro Quality?

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

That's the question. When new, the nFD version of this zoom was priced at more than twice that of the nFD 70-210mm f/4, which is a good optic. BUt supposedly the 80-200 is better. But is it really? Well, I just bought the 80-200mm f/4 from eBay. Those lenses are going for dirt cheap over there, despite the fact that they were over $300 new. I bought my copy, which is in solid Exc+ condition, for $25 and free shipping!

I also own the 70-210mm f/4, so one thing I'm gonna do is a comparison between the two. Stay tuned for that one. Meanwhile, here are a couple of pics of the zoom and an assortment of pics I just took with it.

The camera I used is a NEX 7, set to ISO 400 at first, then later to ISO 100. I haven't done any sort of post processing to these images, other than reducing them to 1500 x 1000 for display here.

200mm, closest focusing distance (about 3.5 ft) at f/8, ISO 400

200mm, closest focusing distance, wide open at f/4, ISO 400. I like the totally blown background. Decent bokeh.

Another shot of the same buds:

A chevy bus in a storage lot behind our house with Harley motorcycle badge and "Live to Ride" on its display panel. 200mm, Aperture Priority at f/8, ISO 100.

A weathered old sign on the storage lot fence gate. 200mm, Aperture Priority at f/8, ISO 100:

I just realized that all my images are at 200mm. Oh well, that's typically what happens with me and zooms anyway -- max focal length.

So, what do you think? To me, it isn't as sharp as my best macro lenses, but it appears to be plenty sharp enough for general photography. At 200mm and f/4 it also does a good job with blowing out the background. Plus I do like the colors this lens is showing and its contrast is decent. If I were to do some post processing on the images, I would give them a bit of sharpening and a slight bump in contrast. That's really all they need.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Looks pretty good for an old zoom, certainly better than most. I think it's probably one of the best prosumer level zooms of the era along with the Minolta 4/70-210 and Viv S1 4/70-210.

I just picked up a copy of the Canon FD nFD 5.6/100-300 for 12ukp because it has some fungus in the front group that looks like it should clean up good, hopefully it will perform similarly to the 4/80-200.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I've never owned the FD 100-300, either as a user or a dealer. But I have read on more than one occasion that it is just okay. Even Canon's promotional photos in which that lens was used were less than exemplary. But I have heard that the later 100-300 L is quite good. Here's hoping you got a good copy, though.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I have a status update to report. I will be starting a thread comparing this 80-200 with my nFD 70-210mm f/4. Just a short while ago, I concluded the comparison tests. Results were mixed, partially due to rapidly changing light conditions. The sun's colors and angle change rather rapidly once mid afternoon hits during the winter.

In some of the photos, the 80-200 was the clear winner, while in others the 70-210 was. And in still others, it was a draw. I was shooting for detail more so than anything else. But I was also shooting off hand and had to use a flash a few times to get the shutter speed up. Even when using a fill flash outdoors, the subject can be blurred because the flash is just doing fill chores only. Plus with the NEX the shutter speed is being bumped up to only 1/80, but if one is shooting at 200mm, that shutter speed is still too low and the fill flash is not gonna freeze things.

In a couple of the shots, in which the two lenses were very far apart in terms of results, the difference wasn't due to camera shake or subject movement. It had to have been due to incorrect focusing.

So I'm gonna give it another go tomorrow, but I'll conduct the test earlier in the day, and I'm gonna use a tripod for every shot. Plus I'm gonna double-check the focus on all shots with the NEX's focus magnification feature. Hopefully that will at least reduce the chance of any focusing errors.

I can say this much so far, however -- this is gonna be an extremely close contest. That 70-210 is a sharp lens.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Oldhand · Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:59 am Post subject:

Looking forward to your results Michael.
Thanks for doing this.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Nice images Thomas. I am gladdened to see that your lens performs so well. It puts to rest then those stories I'd heard about it. You know, Canon made two versions of the nFD 100-300. The first was made in the typical "look" that Canon gave most of its nFD optics. The second has the matte finish with a tapered zoom collar and different rubberized textures. I'm pretty sure they're the same optical formula, though. At Canon's camera/lens museum, the photo of the 100-300 they have there is actually a photo of the second version. So I'm thinking they must have the same optical formula then.

Here's the first version:
Click here to see on Ebay

And here's the second:
Click here to see on Ebay

And, just for sake of comparison, the 100-300 L:
Click here to see on Ebay

barryreid · Expire: 2015-11-04

Think the second version of the 100-300 has cosmetic changes to match the other late zooms like the 75-200 and the 35-105 one touch (the one with the mounded aspherical element).

I also think the 70-210 is a very under-appreciated lens, I put mine ahead of the Tamron SP 70-210mm f/3.5 I briefly owned.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I'm not surprised. I have the Tamron 70-210 and I'll admit that I've barely used it. Usually when I grab a Tamron zoom these days, it's the 80-200/2.8 LD. It's big and heavy, but the results from it are outstanding.

Anyway, hmmm . . . that would be an interesting comparison. The Tamron vs the Canon.

Oh, by the way, I wasn't able to get out and make the test shots I wanted yesterday because the weather was miserable. Rainy and cold. Today's weather looks like it might be better.

You know, the comparison's got me to thinking. Would any of you be interested in a broader comparison? I have several zooms that fall within the 80-200 range. Let's see:

Canon FL 85-300/5
Canon nFD 80-200/4
Canon nFD 70-210/4
Canon EF 70-210/4
Canon EF 75-300/4-5.6 II
Nikon 80-200/4.5
Nikon AF-D 70-300/4-5.6 ED
Albinar 80-200/3.9
Kalimar 28-200/4
Tamron SP 60-300/3.8-5.4
Tamron SP 70-210/3.5
Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 LD
Tamron 80-210/3.8-4

Oldhand · Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:11 pm Post subject:

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Something to think about. If I drop all the -300 zooms and the AF zooms and that Kalimar 28-200, that gets me down to seven, still a lot, but a more manageable number.

Canon 70-210/4
Canon 80-200/4
Nikon 80-200/4.5
Albinar 80-200/3.9
Tamron SP 70-210/3.5
Tamron SP 80-200/2.8
Tamron 80-210/3.8-4

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Sounds like a great idea, Steve. You've also got a few top-notch optics in your list, so it will be interesting to see how yours fare together. I plan on getting the ball rolling on this test today. How about you?

Oh, I see you're in Switzerland. So, for you maybe tomorrow would be the earliest, I'm thinking.