Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 200mm f1.8 "good" serial numbers?  (Read 4992 times)
Charles Gast
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« on: May 02, 2007, 04:31:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I am looking into the Canon 200mm f1.8 lens and of course all of them are used since they quit making them. I noticed on ebay that sellers like to tout high serial numbers.  Is that just to say they are newer or is it known that later models had improved optics?

Thanks!
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2007, 06:05:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Just make sure you get the glass filter holder with the clear glass filter. The difference wide open between filter and no filter is huge.
Logged
Charles Gast
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2007, 08:04:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just make sure you get the glass filter holder with the clear glass filter. The difference wide open between filter and no filter is huge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does not having the filter in place throw the focus off?
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2007, 08:12:19 PM »
ReplyReply

When I got mine there was a gelatin filter holder with no filter. The filter, be it glass or gelatin, is supposed to be in the optical path. It really made a big difference wide open. It was sharp without it, but on another planet with it. I picked up the glass filter holder with a filter used at Samy's. If your lens doesn't come with that, it's not an expensive item.
Logged
dmg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2007, 01:45:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am looking into the Canon 200mm f1.8 lens and of course all of them are used since they quit making them. I noticed on ebay that sellers like to tout high serial numbers.  Is that just to say they are newer or is it known that later models had improved optics?

Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I recommend you stay with negative numbers, the provide the best value. I have also heard that real numbers are to be preferred to complex (which might indicate feature creep and a potential failure).

dmg
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4120



« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2007, 06:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I recommend you stay with negative numbers, the provide the best value. I have also heard that real numbers are to be preferred to complex (which might indicate feature creep and a potential failure).

dmg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lenses with pure imaginary numbers are cheaper.

Edmund
Logged
CUclimber
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2007, 06:29:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lenses with pure imaginary numbers are cheaper.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How true! Just now I imagined that I had a 200 f/1.8  (serial # -5i) and it was much cheaper than actually buying one! Tack sharp too.
Logged
Wild Eyes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2007, 07:16:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Numbers in the 15000 plus range are the newer lenses. I was going to buy one a while back but Canon no longer has the focusing motors to repair any auto focus problems-you will be stuck with a manual focus lens. So I decided against buying one and went with the 300 f/2.8 L IS. If you ever wonder why they are so beat up looking-watch any pro sporting event-you will see the guys drop them as they pick up another camera with a wide angle lens to get the close up shot. Hope this helps.

Bill
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad