October 22, 2014, 08:57:07 AM

Author Topic: Old lenses - really so bad?  (Read 6924 times)

daniela

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Old lenses - really so bad?
« on: October 23, 2013, 05:04:43 PM »
Today I got my "new" 70D back from the shop I bought it in Munich. They exchanged it, after an system breakdown (posted).
My question: The shop assistents told me to exchange 2 of my lenses. I own an 70-200mm 2.8L and an 28-70mm L 2.8. I bought them about 7-8 years ago and they work well.
Are they really so "sub" using them on the 70D?
They said, that the 70D requires an IS Lens, the 70-200 II or the 24-70 2.8 II (no IS). Is this true?

MTx
Dani



canon rumors FORUM

Old lenses - really so bad?
« on: October 23, 2013, 05:04:43 PM »

m

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2013, 05:11:03 PM »
Required to do...what?

Do you like the pictures you take?
If not, what do you not like and would those lenses help you fix it?

ahab1372

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2013, 05:16:50 PM »
The 70D does not "require" those lenses (or any other IS lenses), and neither does any other camera.
The newer lenses you mentioned do have better Image Quality, but that doesn't mean you cannot use the ones you have. If the better IQ is worth the higher price is completely up to you.
 In my experience, what is most noticeable when upgrading equipment, is the fact that my creativity (or lack thereof) has not changed at all :)

Viele Grüße nach München
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 05:20:51 PM by ahab1372 »

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2013, 09:13:00 PM »
Damn, I'd better throw out about 50 of my >30 year-old lenses, they're obviously not as good as my latest lenses.
Yes, the 70-200 II and 24-70 II *are* better than the ones you have currently, in most respects. But why exchange them if they do what you need? You'll be about $1000-$2000 out-of-pocket per lens, is that worth it for snapshots?
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 8864
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2013, 09:26:32 PM »
Today I got my "new" 70D back from the shop I bought it in Munich. They exchanged it, after an system breakdown (posted).
My question: The shop assistents told me to exchange 2 of my lenses. I own an 70-200mm 2.8L and an 28-70mm L 2.8. I bought them about 7-8 years ago and they work well.
Are they really so "sub" using them on the 70D?
They said, that the 70D requires an IS Lens, the 70-200 II or the 24-70 2.8 II (no IS). Is this true?

MTx
Dani
Your old lenses are superb lenses, true, the newer ones are better, but You have very good ones.  It sounds like either the person who told you that was incompetent, or was trying to sell you new lenses you don't need.
You do not need IS lenses, they do make it easier for inexperienced photographers, and experienced photographers like them on the longer focal lengths.  Somehow, photographers got along for 100 years without IS lenses.

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2436
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2013, 09:51:52 PM »
Today I got my "new" 70D back from the shop I bought it in Munich. They exchanged it, after an system breakdown (posted).
My question: The shop assistents told me to exchange 2 of my lenses. I own an 70-200mm 2.8L and an 28-70mm L 2.8. I bought them about 7-8 years ago and they work well.
Are they really so "sub" using them on the 70D?
They said, that the 70D requires an IS Lens, the 70-200 II or the 24-70 2.8 II (no IS). Is this true
no...  they were trying to sell you something that is better,  but not required.   is  is  absolutely not a requirement...  maybe if you have a  shaking disease.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

mwh1964

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2013, 10:18:49 PM »
Odd advise coming from that store. Enjoy your new camera and older lenses.
5D3 | 16-35L IS | 24-70L II | 24-105L | 70-200L II | 70-300L | 15 fisheye | 35 IS | 40 STM | 50 f1.4 | 100L | B&W Kaesemann | 2 x 600 EX-RT | ST-E3-RT | MR14-EX | EOS M + 22 STM + 90 EX | Manfrotto | Billingham | Lowepro | Think Tank

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2013, 10:18:49 PM »

eosuser1234

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2013, 11:35:30 PM »
Often this sales tactic is used in stores carrying used equipment.  They usually offer a trade in credit off for your old lenses, but it will be really low usually, only a hundred of dollars if that.  They get more used inventory at dirt cheap prices to sell, and move new product at the same time. 

Any EF lense will work on any EOS camera. 

alexanderferdinand

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 435
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2013, 12:30:54 AM »
In a shop they always try to sell you something.
Your lenses are "usable". ;)P

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2013, 01:17:17 AM »
You don´t need IS lenses for any camera, but for beginners (and pros in some situations) a IS lenses can save your day and image.

greger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
  • 7D
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2013, 02:04:00 AM »
Maybe you need a new shop to buy equipment from. The only reason to upgrade lenses is they don't work anymore. I
read that my 7D needs good glass. My 17-85 works fine on the 7D and I don't consider it good glass compared to other
lenses Canon makes. I won't be replacing it as it seems to have improved on the 7D compared to the 40D it came with ;D
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

johnf3f

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
  • Canon 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2013, 06:03:52 PM »
Find a new camera shop - with advise like that they are not trustworthy and are just trying to get your money!
You have 2 excellent lenses that many photographers can only dream of owning.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2014, 02:12:45 PM »
Sorry for the late reply, I just saw this thread. I would get rid of 28-70 2.8 as soon as possible

See: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/31249/why-is-there-glow-around-lights-in-every-photo-shot-with-my-canon-ef-28-70mm-f-2

or search google for Canon 28-70 2.8 fog issues

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2014, 02:12:45 PM »

eninja

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2014, 05:30:50 AM »
Well, I think I read it somewhere in the 70D AF bug thread, that newer lens got rotation counter making them more accurate to AF. Maybe this is what the guy is trying to imply. Knowing this makes me want to move to newer lens.. but what the heck, im still ok with my old lens.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2014, 10:31:38 AM »
I was not satisfied with my 28-70 2.8 so I sold it back in 2009 when I moved into FF. However my 70-200 2.8L was very good!
(Unfortunately it was stolen  >:( )

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2014, 10:31:38 AM »