Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens

It is most definitely an amateur lens. Plastic construction right down to its lens mount. This thing looks and feels like the label should say Fisher Price and not Nikon. However, looks can be deceiving. Just use it, quit looking at it already. If you need a metal mount, maybe you are a little too rough with your camera. Plastics allow the manufacture of strongly aspherical lens elements which are difficult or impossible to manufacture in glass, and which simplify or improve lens manufacture and performance.

Plastics are not used for the outermost elements of all but the cheapest lenses as they scratch easily. Molded plastic lenses have been used for the cheapest disposable cameras for many years, and have acquired a bad reputation: manufacturers of quality optics tend to use euphemisms such as "optical resin". However many modern, high performance (and high priced) lenses from popular manufacturers include molded or hybrid aspherical elements, so it is not true that all lenses with plastic elements are of low photographic quality.

If you need a low light lens, this isn't it. If your primary objective is to take pictures in available light situations such as weddings and concerts, then get the 80-200mm f/2.8 or the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 instead.

This is a review of a discontinued Canon lens that was replaced in favor of the 70-200/2.8L, which has an ultrasonic motor and accepts teleconverters.

Canon 80-200/4.5 AF Zoom Lens AUTO FOCUS TELEPHOTO. Five zoom lens groups have been improved to obtain higher image quality.

The lens has a removable tripod collar and comes with a lens hood and hard case. The front element (72mm filters) does not rotate during focusing. It's well balanced and solidly built (no plastic). It does not have a USM motor or full time manual focusing. I know Philip thinks these are essential (or at least very desirable), but the lens still focuses very quickly and quietly and I have never found it "too slow" or "noisy". AF is very positive and accurate. Full time manual focus is nice, but it's a feature I rarely if ever use on the lenses I own which do have it, so I really don't miss it on this lens. It's a "two touch" zoom with seperate rings for focus and zoom.

Image stabilizer: No

Environmental Sealing: No

USM: No

L-series: No

Diffractive Optics: No

Maximum aperture: f/4.5-5.6

Minimum aperture: f/29

Filter diameter: 52 mm

Diagonal viewing angle: 30°-12°

Physical data

Weight: 250 g

Max. Diameter x Length: 69 x 78.5mm

Groups/elements:7/10

# of diaphragm blades: 5

Closest focusing distance: 1.5 m

Middle of the road lens..., December 13, 2007

By J. Lilleskov "Displaced Tundra Bum" (Rochester, MN)

I'll be honest in saying that this lens doesn't absolutely thrill me. But it doesn't disappoint, either. It is a decent lens for the price and an excellent starter lens. I bought this lens when I made the step up to SLR with my 10D. It takes some decent pictures. Not stunningly sharp, yet usable for a number of tasks. I'm not so sure about action shots yet, though. The main test I had with it was a volleyball game my wife was coaching. I rattled off 100 shots with this lens, and got about 15 that I was happy with. I haven't really used it since then based on this. I've learned more things to help my photography in this situation, and I have learned that I probably wasn't using the correct focus drive for the situation. That most likely accounts for the vast majority of shots I didn't care for. Even though I now know this, I somehow associate this lens with my disappointment with those shots. I've since upgraded to an older 70-210 push-pull zoom lens that I like a lot better. I may sell this lens, but I'll give it another shot before I do that. Aside from that, the build quality is good for the price, and it is fairly lightweight for the zoom you get with it. It's not a terribly fast lens apeture-wise, but it seems to work well enough. I don't think you can get a better zoom lens for the price, so I can't knock it too much! Overall, you'd be wise to start off with a zoom like this one and work from there. It's a great starting block lens!

By Darren W. Brown "fromshadowlands" (Houston, Texas USA)

I got this lens as a gift back in 2002, I believe. It's a real work-horse. It's very "plastic" compared to the more costly lenses, but that also keeps it very light. Because it's so light, I tend to lug it around more than I would if it were a more quality/heavy lens. So for the price, it gets the job done. Don't listen to the lens snobs that put it down. I've taked some outstanding photos with this lens, and yes... even at full zoom. And they talk about the poor build quality? False. Yes, it's plastic and cheap. But it's built well. Mine is over five years old and well traveled. Works perfectly!!! UPDATE: today (Oct. 30, 2007) I tested this lens. I took photos of moving vehicles on an interestate and they came out crisp and clear at full zoom (200mm). I also took some photos of a cat outside, and they also turned out great at full zoom. For the cost of this lens, it can't be beat!!!