The Canon “Magic Drainpipe”, the name alone conjures up something of legendary status. I often dreamt of acquiring this lens as a younger photographer, but it never made its way into my collection. To me, the “magic” lens had so much more intrigue than the white plastic 70-200mm zoom lenses I saw used by most other photographers. These days, it’s rare to find one in use, but recently, while visiting my friend Paul Vincent’s studio, I noticed he had a copy of this mystical lens on his gear shelf, and he graciously lent me his zoom lens for me to try out.

I’d like to preface this by emphasizing that it will not be a perfect review. The copy of the lens I am shooting with has been heavily used and is showing its age. The front element has scratches and cleaning marks, and a fair amount of dust has accumulated inside the lens. There are also signs on the exterior that the lens was likely dropped several times. Regardless, I have been incredibly excited to shoot this rare and historical lens, and despite its flaws, it performed quite well!

A little history about the lens. First, it’s not officially called the Magic Drainpipe, it’s officially named the Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L. It’s nickname was given to the lens by Canon fans who admired the lens’s appearance, build quality, 2.8 maximum aperture, and L lens status. The name seems to have risen to popularity on photography forums in the early-2000s. Peter Sulonen aka Petteri - a reviewer known for giving various lenses nicknames - may be who is responsible for naming this lens the “Canon Magic Drainpipe”. It’s also quite possible that Dpreview Forum user AdamT could be who named the lens, as one of his posts contains the earliest mention of the nickname I could find, dating back to 2003. It’s also within the realm of possibility that the nickname predates these forums.

The Magic Drainpipe lens was released in 1989 with two other lenses, the EF 20-35 f/2.8L and EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM. Alongside the EF 80-200mm f/2.8L, this trio would make up the very first 2.8L series zoom lenses (although not the first Canon L zooms, the Canon 100-300mm 5.6L released two years earlier in June 1987).

I didn’t read any reviews before going into testing this lens as I wanted my opinion and experience with it to be entirely free of influence. After a day of real-world testing and coming back to my studio, I located online what might be one of the earliest surviving reviews of this lens in Popular Photography Magazine’s September 1994 issue. Upon reading the article, I found that my experience with, and opinions of this lens were extremely similar to that of the Popular Photography reviewer. In short, the lens performs best at 80mm, and image quality degrades as you zoom towards 200mm. The lens seems to achieve peak sharpness around f/5.6 and f/8 depending on the focal length used. If you’re interested in a very technical and concise review of this lens that covers sharpness, distortion, lateral color, and focusing, check out the archived issue on Google Books.

Popular Photography / September 1994 Print Issue - The lens originally listed at $1920 USD, which is about $4000 USD in 2021.

As for build quality, the 80-200mm seems very solid. Weighing in at 1,412 grams, it’s a bit heavier than other similar zoom lenses, which is partly due to its all-metal barrel. The Achilles heel of its design is the focus limiter switch, which I’ve read can be quite fragile. Paul’s copy of the lens that I’m shooting for this review has had its switch broken off almost completely but is surprisingly still fully functional. Something I do enjoy about this lens design is that it is slightly smaller than the 70-200mm line of lenses, which I’ve always considered a bit large and unwieldy.

As for my thoughts on the “Magic” of this lens - it does have a specific look to it, and one that for the most part you’re stuck with. This lens was not profiled by Adobe, meaning the only way to remove any vignetting or distortion is by manually removing it, a bit of a daunting feat as these qualities change based on your selected aperture. If profile corrections did exist for this lens within Photoshop/Lightroom, then I would consider this lens an incredible alternative to Canon’s modern 70-200mm lenses. As I look at the sample photos I shot with the Canon 80-200mm f/2.8, I can’t help but think of what this lens was originally designed for, which is 35mm film. The qualities of this design carry over to digital and the photographs it produces are very reminiscent of images I’ve shot on 35mm film cameras. It’s a bit hard to quantify, as it’s more about how the images feel. There’s an imperfect nature to the sharpness, bokeh, and rendering of the image that feels very “of its time”. I suppose these days, that’s part of the magic.

Would I recommend this lens now? It depends on your intent. Most professional photographers would get more use out of Canon’s newer 70-200mm IS USM models, which were designed and optimized for digital sensors, and include the added benefits of weather sealing, image stabilization, and quieter autofocus. Yet if you’re someone who craves the look of 35mm film, and you want an affordable and authentic legacy lens to match, then the 80-200mm f/2.8 may be the perfect fit.