Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II
Showing 1-10 of 24
great for zooming, bad for low light.
18 July 2013
Summary: Pros: great reach for the price. Feels well made in my hands. Takes nice pictures. very little if any distortion on the edges of my pictures. Cons: Higher F stop means it struggles under low light conditions. All in all its pretty much exactly what I expected.
Summary: 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.
Summary: 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.
Summary: Was a great lens for shooting candids at outdoor events, but next time I'll get something with a better aperture for a nice blur in the background. At f4.5, all the people in the background were too clear and it took away from the subject. So- great lens, just didn't work for candids in a crowd like I had hoped. Live and learn.
Summary: I bought this lens on the advice of the other reviewers, and I was not at all disappointed. This is a fantastic lens for what you pay. It is indeed a light light lens and it almost feels "cheap," but it functions great and takes great shots. When focusing manually, it doesn't feel as smooth as some other lenses. But you really can't go wrong with this lens.
Summary: This lens is cheap and very light. Admittedly I wasn't very impressed at first, but with addition of a sigma UV filter my pictures at 200mm are now clearer and a truer reflection of the subject. At 200 the pictures tend to be a bit soft, but it's noticeable unless you do some serious cropping. With this lens I also prefer to shoot with auto zoom instead of manual zoom.
Summary: sometimes that cost can be overwhelming. I got this lens 10 years ago with my my Rebel G (film camera). I used this lens for about six months after getting my Digital Rebel. For the most part I was reasonably happy with my results. When stopped down to about f8 this lens can take some pretty good shots. About a year ago I bought Canon's 70-200mm f4L. When I go back and look at the shots taken with the two lens the difference is pretty dramatic.