The obvious difference is the weight - the 135-400 feels quite a bit lighter. The 80-200 is a solid metal bodied lens and being te old type is push/pull - which people either tend to love or hate. With regard to quality of results I have'nt found a massive difference - but the 80-200 with the 2x on does occasionally show a bit of purple fringing on the edge of something like a sunlit swans wing etc. - I put that down to the cheap 2x I'm using as the lens itself seems pretty good. The advantage for me is that I often photograph birds that don't need a long telephoto and the 80-200 by itself is a great lens - and gives you 300mm at f2.8 which is brilliant in dull weather. The disadvantage of a 135-400 or 170-500 is the 'long' short end.
|