NancyP said:
I'd say a tentative beginner is more interested in an EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II !!!
Upvote
0
Your favorite older EF lens
- Thread starter jeffa4444
- Start date
I'd say a tentative beginner is more interested in an EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II !!!
AlanF said:
I sold mine because the minimum focus distance made it useless for filling a frame with a small bird. I couldn't get it into my camera bag either, it was too long.
It is a good and well built lens, but needs the right subject and the right photographer. Definitely not the best for beginners.
Upvote
0
Mine is the EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.
I considered upgrading to the EF 8-15mm f/4 L, but
1. I have no interest in a circular fisheye.
2. It's not supported by DxO, and I'm uncertain which software would defish it.
3. I haven't seen any IQ comparisons (at 15mm only, of course).
4. It's expensive, and considering the above - I find it hard to justify the upgrade.
I considered upgrading to the EF 8-15mm f/4 L, but
1. I have no interest in a circular fisheye.
2. It's not supported by DxO, and I'm uncertain which software would defish it.
3. I haven't seen any IQ comparisons (at 15mm only, of course).
4. It's expensive, and considering the above - I find it hard to justify the upgrade.
Upvote
0
"Oldies but goodies":
1. Lens I have now - the 300mm non-IS. I live where there are few used lenses so when it showed upon CraigsList I bought it. $700. It's the longest I have, not counting the 2x extender(II) I never seem to fit onto anything. I know the 2x and the 300 are not a good pair...
2. Lens I wish I still had - 35mm TSE FD mount - the lens that made me switch from Nikon to Canon in 1974 (I think I have the year right... 1975?) I currently use the 17, 24, 45, and 90 TSE's. For some years I had the 17 and the 45 and wanted something in between for interiors. 45 just not right most of the time, at least for my clients. Good food lens, though. Yes, I once put the 17mm on the 2x extender on a shoot and just the sight of it gave me the willies. Results not good enough to get over it. Client happy but not me.
Fun thread. Hearing about lenses I never knew about.
1. Lens I have now - the 300mm non-IS. I live where there are few used lenses so when it showed upon CraigsList I bought it. $700. It's the longest I have, not counting the 2x extender(II) I never seem to fit onto anything. I know the 2x and the 300 are not a good pair...
2. Lens I wish I still had - 35mm TSE FD mount - the lens that made me switch from Nikon to Canon in 1974 (I think I have the year right... 1975?) I currently use the 17, 24, 45, and 90 TSE's. For some years I had the 17 and the 45 and wanted something in between for interiors. 45 just not right most of the time, at least for my clients. Good food lens, though. Yes, I once put the 17mm on the 2x extender on a shoot and just the sight of it gave me the willies. Results not good enough to get over it. Client happy but not me.
Fun thread. Hearing about lenses I never knew about.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Sure, we're all different. Thankfully the subject was "Your favorite older EF lens", and I could agree with NancyP and her reasonings.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
Couldn't disagree more. The 400 f5.6 is very light and maneuverable; totally handholdable even at lower shutter speeds. In fact, I'd actually encourage beginners to forego IS in order to force them to learn proper technique before relying on technology to make the pictures for them. Another issue is that at shutter speeds where IS becomes necessary, the bird's own movements will blur the shot. Maybe not a problem shooting herons standing rock still but definitely an issue with the smaller birds you're talking about. IS is great but I've been doing totally fine without it shooting handheld with a 300 f2.8 non-IS + 2x TC and I think the sharpness and weight advantage of the 400 prime makes it pretty ideal for the beginner.
Upvote
0
I have the 50m 1.8 mk 1 love it also a 20-35 3.5-4.5 usm both bought used love it too had to get a 10-22 efs to get real wide-angle but It was a wonderful match for my t1i. I used the 20-35 the most when I took my trip to japan fallowed by the 28-135 lens and now I just bought the 400 5.6l usm for the fall migration. I could no longer wait for the Tamron 150-600. I can say I love the 400 5.6l lens with out is. yes I have missed shots and this is just a hand held shot ps. sorry the first image was too big
Attachments
Upvote
0
The first EF lens I ever bought was a 300/2.8 L (the original non-IS version) more than 23 years ago. Over the succeeding years it's my been favorite and probably most-used lens. In fact, I'm still regularly using a second one I bought as a replacement a decade ago.
Canon seemed to hit it out of the park with this one, as it still is an equal to the late-model 70-200 and 500 lenses I own.
Canon seemed to hit it out of the park with this one, as it still is an equal to the late-model 70-200 and 500 lenses I own.
Upvote
0
You know the one lens I haven't seen mentioned yet is the mythical 50 mm F 1.0. I rented one once. For a couple of days just so I could say I have held one. May not have been the sharpest lens in the bag but it is by far one of the most unique and controversial lenses canon has made.
Upvote
0
My oldest EF is a 35L, it can still produce beautiful images despite comparisons to the Sigma. A nine year old design can rarely outperform a new design but I'll keep mine anyway.
Upvote
0
Antono Refa said:
Despite its price and large maximum aperture, the 1.0L was not a particularly sharp lens at any aperture, and the two cheaper 50mm options offered far better sharpness when stopped down beyond about f/2.8.
Upvote
0
Mine is the EF 50/2.5 compact macro. More versatile than the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, released in 1987 and still current in Canon's website. I bought mine new in 2013. It spends most of its time on my camera, I zoom with my feet as far as possible, and swap in the 24 IS and 70-300L when needs must. I just wish it could have fast USM.
Another favourite, but less often useful is the 15/2.8 fisheye. Excellent when it has opportunity to shine, and autofocus is not relevant on such a short focal length, in all other respects I can find no fault. This was also part of Canon's initial EF range in 1987, only discontinued in recent years.
Also from the film era is my Vivitar 19-35, which I use for tight interiors where the 24 just isn't wide enough. I'm considering my options on its replacement.
Another favourite, but less often useful is the 15/2.8 fisheye. Excellent when it has opportunity to shine, and autofocus is not relevant on such a short focal length, in all other respects I can find no fault. This was also part of Canon's initial EF range in 1987, only discontinued in recent years.
Also from the film era is my Vivitar 19-35, which I use for tight interiors where the 24 just isn't wide enough. I'm considering my options on its replacement.
Upvote
0
None so far. Closest for me was the EF 100/2.0 - i liked the focal length on APS-C, combined with the speed and compact size of the lens. But lack of IS and even more so horrible CA ("purple fringing", 4 pixels wide on any fine structure in the background and on hard contrast edges) made me sell it.
I still got a 50/1.4 but don't use it much. Also mainly due to LoCAs.
Old EF zooms i had the 28-135 once. Liked the zoom range but hated the softness and the 1-stop only IS system and the wobbling of the dual cam lens tubes.
Happy with canons new L IS II zoom line. Would consider good new version of 50/1.4 IS and 100/2.0 IS, if reasonably priced.
Older EF lenses ... meh.
I still got a 50/1.4 but don't use it much. Also mainly due to LoCAs.
Old EF zooms i had the 28-135 once. Liked the zoom range but hated the softness and the 1-stop only IS system and the wobbling of the dual cam lens tubes.
Happy with canons new L IS II zoom line. Would consider good new version of 50/1.4 IS and 100/2.0 IS, if reasonably priced.
Older EF lenses ... meh.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
