Some time ago I tested the 80-200/3.5 and the UC80-200/4.0 zooms to see which one was best. I planned to keep the best one and sell the other. At the same time, I was testing the 200/3.5 and the 200/4.0 for the same purpose. I tested all the lenses at 200mm only. As I recall, I used Kodachrome 64, tripod, aperture of f/8.0 to 11.0, and the self-timer on a T-2 camera to control the mirror. I always check the slides with a 30X magnifier to compare results. The 200/3.5 gave the best results; the 80-200/3.5 was surprisingly close; next was the 200/4.0; and the UC80-200/4.0 was the trailer. None of the lenses was bad, but at 30X at the 200mm range, there were clear differences. I didn't test the lenses wide open. No doubt that the differences in the zooms and the fixed lenses would be magnified there. I also didn't test the zooms against my 85/1.8 and 135/3.2 Hexanons, which I wish I would have done, though I have little doubt what the results would have been. I haven't ever used the 80-200/4.5, so I can't comment on it. I do have an 80-200/4.0, but haven't tested it yet either. Some early snapshots I got with it didn't look bad, however, so I'll take a closer look one of these days. The close focusing design of the UC80-200 was a nice feature. In any event, if you shoot slow speed film, as I do the zooms usually stay in the cabinet. The comments posted so far on the 80-200/3.5 are pretty accurate, in my view. I think it is a fine lens, especially considering its vintage. As was stated, it is also a beast and isn't pleasant to lug about. It has been available on eBay for some great prices in the last few months. Last summer I couldn't get more then $55 for a mint minus 80-200/3.5, with original hood and and case! I eventually sold one for $75.00 and another without the goodies for about $50.00. Both were in perfect condition, physically, cosmetically and optically.

FM

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001