Quote Originally Posted by Ade
Forgetting the usual discussion points of versatility IS etc, does anyone have any experience of the quality of the older optics versus the newer ones, i.e. are 20 year old lenses still compaprable with the new ones?

I never tried the new 70-200 f2.8, but I have used the 200mm f2.8L II at a figure-skating event a few months ago. I only shot at f4 so I can't say how it is at f2.8, but I am very impressed by the results.


The AF is bloody fast. I think it's the fastes AF-lens I've used to this day. My 70-200 f4L IS is fast, but this one is better. (Might also be due to the f2.8 focusing points...dunno)


If you don't need a zoom and don't mind missing IS, it's a great lens. And given the price, it's really good. I like the 200mm a lot for the ice-skating, however it's not such an easy prime-length. It's not really a tele-lens, also it's not really a portrait lens. Since it's not really a tele-lens, it doesn't have a dedicated purpose. (like birds or something). On the other hand, with a 200mm prime, taking a step back or forward doesn't change a lot in the composition, which makes it a difficult lens for me to use in general.


If you are certain about the focal lenght, I'd say go for it. It's a sharp lens.The benefit of the new lenses is more with aberration and flare-control and new coatings and that sort of stuff if you ask me. Sharpnesswise, you're not going to notice a big increase in sharpness, although the ISO-crops might give you that idea.


I personally like primes more and more, but for me there are still situations where I need a zoom. So I ended up with a zoom anyways.


If you want, I could post a 100% crop or something. Just let me know.


Jan