Canon "L" lenses compared with older MF lenses.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

No excuse at all considering I have a 8.5 inch Ross lens from the 50s that has zero CA.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I'm not an expert, but I've believed for some time that it is either that extra 20mm or the extra 1/2 stop that gives the 200/2.8 its problems.

Both Nikon and Tamron were able to build 180s that were f/2.8 (or faster with the Tamron) and well-corrected optically: the Nikkor 180/2.8 AIs ED, and the Tamron SP 180/2.5.

And many manufacturers have made 200mm f/3.5 lenses over the years that are at least not so bad in terms of CA.

But it seems like as soon as one bumps up the lens by 20mm and opens it up 1/2 stop more, problems begin. Well, for Canon, at least. I'm reminded of the various 80-200mm f/2.8 zooms that were built over the years by three of the four major aftermarket players as well as Nikon. (Vivitar didn't participate since they'd already been producing zooms @ 210mm and f/3.5 -- reckon they figured that was close enough). Canon didn't come out with an equivalent -- the EF 70-210/2.8 -- until years later. By all accounts I've read, it is an excellent optic -- better in fact than the EF 200/2.8L -- again, according to reports I've read. So I find it all rather puzzling. From Canon's point of view, at least.

Still, if it were me and I was on a tight budget, I'd do as many of you guys are suggesting and go with one of the lenses you're discussing that show up in Europe often, but are scarce over here in the US, or a Vivitar or Soligor 200/3.5, which are common over here. Honestly I consider my Vivitar to be good enough for just about any photographic situation, except macro. And with an extension tube or two, it would probably work welll for macro too. Or double stack it with another lens like a 50mm or 100mm for macro work.