Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 14, 2007, 12:42 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
SoundDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Default

Does anyone know anything about this lens. Its a dinosaur, one of the first AF lenses. But at $160, I'm considering picking it up on the used market to give me some longer range. I just picked up a 400D and right now only have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Anyone have any knowldege of this lens?
SoundDust is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 14, 2007, 7:09 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The lens is the old style push-pull with its benefit and detraction
It has no USM so don't expect it too be vey fast
Lens desigh has come a long way with computer aided design so don't expect it too too sharp @ 200mm as your 'digital' only Tamron for example...

-> Some MTF's (the blue curves is @ f/8 ) here for it's replacement the EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...28L/index1.htm
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2007, 2:46 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
SoundDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Default

What would be a good way to add some range without breaking the bank? Are there any lenses regarded as a good value in terms of IQ and functionality. I've been looking in the 28-105 zoom range or the 70-200 ranges for a good value, but there doesn't seem to be any standouts. Some lenses in consideration

Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM - not thrilled about the speed. Like the range and price. Pics I've looked at don't look super sharp, and MTF charts back this up.

Canon 70-200mm f/4L - price is a little high for me just wanting to add some zoom range, and the length at the wide end is a little long too.

Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 - price still a little high, but love the range. wouldn't want to plunk down this much on something that gets as many mixed reviews as this lens does though.

Thoughts are appreciated!
SoundDust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2007, 9:41 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What's wrong with the EF 55-200?
It's not very fast, but is quite inexpensive...

Unfortunately f/2.8 and f/4 lenses do cost a bit more
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2007, 11:46 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
SoundDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Default

The need for speed is what would hold me back there.

This was my first weekend with the new camera and Tamron. To be honest, I don't even think I really need much extra range, at least not right now. I was plenty happy with the range of the Tamron. Now I know why everyone recommends getting one lens to start then determining what your needs/shooting style require. I'm set for now, but am considering the 85mm f/1.8 as I hear it has incredible sharpness, and might be a fun lens to play with. It's not crazy expensive either. I think the 35mm f/1.4 is my dream lens but that will probably have to wait until I win the lottery.
SoundDust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2007, 2:30 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16
Default

SoundDust wrote:
Quote:
The need for speed is what would hold me back there.

This was my first weekend with the new camera and Tamron. To be honest, I don't even think I really need much extra range, at least not right now. I was plenty happy with the range of the Tamron. Now I know why everyone recommends getting one lens to start then determining what your needs/shooting style require. I'm set for now, but am considering the 85mm f/1.8 as I hear it has incredible sharpness, and might be a fun lens to play with. It's not crazy expensive either. I think the 35mm f/1.4 is my dream lens but that will probably have to wait until I win the lottery.
What exactly are you shooting? I picked up the 50mm 1.8 prime lens (just under 100 bucks), and it's great - but only for portraits. You mentioned two primes with wide f/stops. Are you taking portraits or moving photos? Are your subjects stationary? If not, it might be time to start putting some money aside for a nice L-series lens.

You mentioned the 28-105mm as being too soft for you at the long end. I own that lens and don't really see it being TOO much of an issue for my shots (mostly family, friends, and ocassional action here and there). I just purchased as a companion to this lens the 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM lens (discontinued). This model was made as an upgrade to the 70-210 model, and it features USM. I would suggest checking if it suits your taste and need. I'll post more on the lens when I receive it.
z0rk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2007, 4:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

SoundDust. I actually bought this (70-210) lens new, many years ago. Bought it at a Ritz dealer in Florida while on vacation. The lens performed well for me and I actually used it with my DRebel. It was a little slow in focusing but I don't think its much slower than my 70-200L f/4. The only real knock I had on the lens was that the push design had a tendency to slide down as I carried it on the camera. Otherwise the lens was fine. For its current price I would think its worth it until you can fine a better deal on a more modern lens. Finding a constant F4, 70-200 at this price range is difficult. I would still have the lens but passed it on to my SNL along with my DRebel and kit lens.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 18, 2007, 2:16 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
SoundDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Default

@Zork - I guess my favorite type of thing to shoot is general street photography and landscapes, so thats why the Tamron is just right for me. It gives me a good wide angle has a nice constant f/2.8 so I can get nice bokeh in the longer part of the range. I love isolating the subject, and shoot a lot in low light, which is why I am looking at the faster lenses. I considered the 50mm 1.8 but have read a lot about how its not so sharp until stopped down, and questioned what the point was if I already had a lens capable at 50mm and 2.8. Doesn't make much sense. If I'm going to add a lens, I'd like it to offer me something outside the realm of what I'm already working with. Thats why I kind of like the 85mm 1.8.

@ctrack - thanks for the insight. Do you happen to have a folder online somewhere with some pictures you've taken with that lens?

I think the bottom line is that I need to wait and shoot with what I have for a bit to see what lens characteristics I really feel lacking, if any. It takes a bit of shooting and analysis of the settings you typically shoot in to really feel out what the best lens match would be.

Thanks all!!
SoundDust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 18, 2007, 11:51 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

Sounddust.

I'll check my archives for a few shots. Probably tomorrow afternoon.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2007, 12:06 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Michi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 176
Default

I had that lens for many years. I originally bought it for a new Canon EOS 10. I have to be honest, it's a terrible lens. It couldn't produce crisp pictures and was slow to focus. Any new 70-200 lens on the market today will easily outperform this lens. Yes, there are none in the $160 range which have a constant f4, but you wouldn't want to shoot this lens with f4 anyways. I made a comparison between it and the 70-200 f4 L once, if I find it I will attach it here.
Michi is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.