Choice of optics 80-700 or 70-200

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

I agree that the Canon 80-200/4 L is a top notch optic. Another one to consider that's in about the same price range as the Canon, if you don't mind putting up with its considerable weight, is the Tamron 80-200mm f/2.8 LD. Fantastic lens. But it is big and heavy. To me, it's worth it, and it does have a tripod mount -- or at least it's supposed to -- which can ease things somewhat.

Jtrcy · Joined: 05 Mar 2017 Posts: 14

While I've also heard the Canon 80-200L lens is the ultimate vintage tele zoom, seems it can't really be had for less than $200 or at the very least.

I've been doing my own round of acquisitions and testing in that range and have consistently found my copy of the Pentax SMC A 70-210 f4 lens beats just about every other long zoom I've tried. All were bought on Ebay, for some, purchased in large lots, I've estimated how much the individual lens cost me.

$10 Pentax SMC A 70-210 f4 - very sharp wide open, not too much purple fringing, great close focus at all focal lengths, just a bit soft at the edges.
$25 Minolta MD 70-210 f4 - not as sharp wide open, a bit glowy, but sharper at the edges. TONS of purple flaring. My copy - not too much zoom creep
$25 Minolta MD Rokkor 75-200 F4.5 - Again, not as good as the Pentax, though the focus throw is much easier to use for some reason.
$15 Tamron 80-210 f3.5/4 - Very impressed with this lens. it's plenty sharp, though a bit low in contrast and seems very compact and well made.

I really wanted to like the Minolta zooms more than my Pentax as Minolta is the main mount I use and I have a soft spot for them as I used an x-700 way back in the day when I was a teenager and saved up my money for the exact same 70-210 as well as the MD35-70 which I have also recently picked up.

They are also very good, but the Pentax holds the edge in my testing. My IQ standard for these tests was my Nikkor ED180mm f2.8, which, even at f2.8 is amazingly sharp across the entire frame.

JT

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

Jtrcy · Joined: 05 Mar 2017 Posts: 14

Problem is, the Tamron 2.8 zoom still sells for $300 + and looks pretty darn heavy. I just picked up the Nikkor ED 180mm in real clean shape for $200 locally. Looks to have been a great purchase. Had just picked up the EDIF AIS 300mm Nikkor recently and became a believer. Picked up the 300mm in relatively beater shape for $125 with perfect glass aside from some dust inside. Was able to separate it in half to properly clean it out. It too is really quite remarkable wide open.

JT

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

Yes, the Tamron is definitely heavy -- I make no bones about that fact. I agree with you about prices, although I find that they tend to be at about the same prices that the Nikkor 180/2.8 EDs sell for. But I got lucky with mine. I found mine at KEH in BGN condition for $225. Reason why so cheap? The zoom collar slipped. Slightly.

You did indeed get your 180/2.8 ED for a great price! And am I reading this right? You picked up a 300mm EDIF for $125? Was this the f/4.5 one? Even so, that's also an incredible price. I wish gear was that cheap around these parts.

Anyway, I think you can see why I sing the praises of the Tamron 80-200/2.8 -- this being despite its weight, mind you. You know, for years, I was used to lugging around heavy camera gear and, even though I'm approaching senior citizen age now, I still don't mind lugging around the gear -- as long as I don't have to lug it very far! Cool

Jtrcy · Joined: 05 Mar 2017 Posts: 14

Yes, it was the 300mm f4.5 EDIF. Man, the IF makes the focus ring so smooth; like one-finger smooth. I've also got a metal barreled Rokkor 300mm f4.5 that's no slouch, except for some purple fringing, but the focusing is so much more of a chore both because the throw is so long and the resistance is quite a bit more than the Ease with which the Nikkor operates.

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

I quite enjoy IF. Whether on my Tamron 300/2.8 EDIF or my Canon nFD 200/2.8 and 200/4 lenses. And a few AF ones I own. They make focusing so fast that, with a bit if practice, they're almost as fast as AF lenses.

Reason why they're so much easier than regular lenses is you're only moving a small group of internal elements with a small amount of mass. With a regular lens, you're racking in and out a whole tube with all its elements. All that weight puts a drag on the focusing system. With your longer telephotos this can make a rather significant difference.

TAo2 · Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Posts: 319 Location: Scotland

Vivitar 80-200mm f3.5 - Tokina version

Vivitar Series 1 (VMC) 70/210 f4.5

Difficult tae separate them, love them both

PS it's worth clicking on the photos tae view with the dark background...
Tuzki with lens