Your favorite older EF lens
- Thread starter jeffa4444
- Start date
Canon EF 35-350mmL f/3.5-5.6.
Most underrated lens ever.
WAYYY better than the 28-300mm and 1/2 the price.
The only reason why I sold is DxO isn't going to write a program for it.
Most underrated lens ever.
WAYYY better than the 28-300mm and 1/2 the price.
The only reason why I sold is DxO isn't going to write a program for it.
Upvote
0
200 2.8L i and ii
400 5.6L
Both still no problem to deliver good images at Canon 70d even at 100% and wide open.
70-200 2.8L, 24-105/4 IS is indeed very fine lens and still very competitive.
85 1.8 ,100 2.0 and 100 2.8 USM macro....great lens.
400 5.6L
Both still no problem to deliver good images at Canon 70d even at 100% and wide open.
70-200 2.8L, 24-105/4 IS is indeed very fine lens and still very competitive.
85 1.8 ,100 2.0 and 100 2.8 USM macro....great lens.
Upvote
0
Gotta be the 135 f/2.
For the most part I have only their new lenses now since they;ve been on such a roll of producing world beating lenses lately. (Unless maybe you count my 300 2.8 IS as old, but that design came out well past the intro of EOS, well, well past).
Main Canon lenses now are: 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 2.8 II, 100L, 135L, 70-300L, 300 2.8 IS L (and 50 1.4 but the AF is poorly created) (also have an old 35-70mm).
Also using Bower 14mm 2.8.
For the most part I have only their new lenses now since they;ve been on such a roll of producing world beating lenses lately. (Unless maybe you count my 300 2.8 IS as old, but that design came out well past the intro of EOS, well, well past).
Main Canon lenses now are: 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 2.8 II, 100L, 135L, 70-300L, 300 2.8 IS L (and 50 1.4 but the AF is poorly created) (also have an old 35-70mm).
Also using Bower 14mm 2.8.
Upvote
0
Of the really old and long discontinued lenses, I like the 70-210mm f/4. Its a push-pull zoom that lets you zoom and focus in one quick motion. For a low cost lens, it makes great cat photos too 
The cat photos were taken several years ago with my 40D. I've since gave the lens to my daughter, and she loves it.
The cat photos were taken several years ago with my 40D. I've since gave the lens to my daughter, and she loves it.
Upvote
0
If memory serves me correctly, the very first EF I purchased was the 50-200/3.5-4.5L. And I also recall it was very hard to find at the time, perhaps on its way to being discontinued (?). Shortly thereafter I purchased the 100-300/5.6L. Too bad IS wasn't around for these two fine optics.
Upvote
0
L 300 f/4is...what a sleeper from 1998 this one is. I sold mine when I bought my 300 f/2.8is but bought another recently. There is room for both lenses in any kit. The f/4 is so light & small, and focuses so close I can use it as a macro. I shoot food with this lens. It's a very different look.
Other than the 300, I'm not remotely sentimental about old glass. Newer the better in my studio.
-pw
Other than the 300, I'm not remotely sentimental about old glass. Newer the better in my studio.
-pw
Upvote
0
JonAustin said:
+1
Though I'm torn by my 15/2.8 fisheye. Both are recent purchases, but part of the original range launched with the Eos 650 in 1987. Both would benefit from modern controls but are of fine build quality.
The 50/2.5 lives on my 6D. It's an incredibly versatile lens for everything from close focus to landscape.
Upvote
0
DominoDude said:
How on earth can a telephoto lens without IS be described as a "perfect birding lens for beginners"? I would have missed 70-80% of my best photos of birds without IS. The lens' former greatest proponent Arthur Morris has long discarded it because lenses because it doesn't have IS.
I am not saying the lens is no good - it is excellent for birds in flight, and it is fine on a tripod. But, there are just so many opportunities, especially with small birds, where you have to be able to take shots at a 1/100 to 1/400s hand holding. The lens without IS is not "perfect" but limited in its usefulness and that is why we want a new one with 4 stops of IS.
Upvote
0
I think a lens should surprise to be a favorite. I really liked the 50mm 1.8 metal mount, but it just did as advertised. The lenses that really surprised me were the 55-200mm, and the 35-80mm f/4-5.6 Powerzoom. Both I bought for 5 euros, both were a gimick, and both performed really well. That Powerzoom on a rebel in full auto is something monkeys can handle, and it produces decent pictures. My copy is a bit yellow. But for 5 euros. Who cares!
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
I think of myself as a beginner. I have a 600d and the 400 5.6 is the only L-lense I own. Prior to the 600d I had a point and shoot. I bought the 400 it as a step up from the 55-250. Since having the lens I have switched to always shooting in manual, and I have a much better understanding processing because I have to pay more attention to iso. And I'd say that once the first few months were out of the way I don't miss much. OK maybe if a bird of prey is diving at speed or I'm in a rainforest then I don't expect too much. But for a beginner birder it's an awesome lens, not least because it's available second hand in terrific condition for so little money (I paid about the same for a mint condition 400 as I did for a new Sigma 35 1.4).
I guess it might depend on where you live. In and around where I am there's plenty of light and many of the small birds are curious, and it's quite possible to get reasonably close.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better with IS (there are times, for sure), but I would recommend it to anyone else starting out trying to photograph birds.
Upvote
0
streestandtheatres said:
We will disagree on this: I would strongly recommend against the 400/5.6 L. And I always put my money where my mouth is - here is a link to photos I took last month, which would not have been possible without IS and it would have been a wasted holiday for bird watching as virtually all the birds to be found were done so opportunistically and under adverse conditions.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.0
See also http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html for the advantages of the 100-400l IS over the 400/5.6
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
Fair enough. Nice shots! There was no Tammy when I bought the 400... Getting the 400 for 1/2 the price of a new 100-400 made the decision easier. There were no second hand 100-400s near me. And when I took this the week after I bought the lens...: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhooper/11315987185/
Upvote
0
Art M could probably buy whatever lens he needs without considering cost, and with that in mind I understand his position.AlanF said:
"Beginners" often have less money to spend on glass, and, in my case, I could get one (in mint condition) for less money than a new 70-200/2.8L would cost. It weighs roughly the same as a 70-200/2.8L, so it can be handheld an entire day.
If I waited to buy a more appropriate lens and a tripod, there would've been several thousands of shoots I would have had skipped taking. (In fact I would still be without a decent lens.)
Mine has been used with subjects from 4m all the way up to 120-140m (those long shots were not optimal...), on dragonflies, small tits, eagles and swans, for shooting from up in trees to laying on my belly in the sand, on open ground, and deep inside forests at dusk to shoot deers (bye bye low ISO).
I love it so much that even if I intend to shoot totally different things than typical birds, I still toss it in my backpack and haul it with me - just in case.
Upvote
0
I presume that most beginners are not going to purchase the expensive lenses.
To be fair, I generally recommend that tentative beginners get the 100-400L, because it is more versatile, useful for large mammals and general ample-light telephoto subjects, and still light enough to be hand-holdable by average people. The tentative beginners probably don't expect to have to invest a lot of time into practice, and expect to get a high keeper rate right off the bat.
For committed beginners, especially "old school" folks like myself, who grew up without IS and without AF and who may have some experience panning moving subjects, the lightweight and well-balanced EF 400 f/5.6L is a superb lens for birds in flight. In the late 1960s and early 1970s I used to shoot horse jumping events (steeplechases, horse shows, three day events) with 135mm and 200mm lenses. I also had no illusions about the difficulty of locating and panning small songbirds with an 8X lens (the 400mm provides roughly same magnification as birding binoculars). I expected to fail at first. I practiced a lot on seagulls and random city park birds, and it took me about half a year (3 or 4 weekend mornings a month) to get reasonably proficient at shooting birds in flight. I use a monopod or tripod for "stake-outs" of stationary or non-flying targets (birds on nest, shorebirds). I do shoot at whatever ISO is needed to get a reasonable shutter speed, and deal with noise later.
I also frequently hand-hold my non-IS EF 180mm f/3.5L macro lens for available-light 1:4 to 1:2X close-up shots of shy organisms (insects, herps), with success. That's another excellent older EF lens, though I would recommend to others the Sigma OS 150 and 180mm versions that became available after I purchased the EF 180mm.
To be fair, I generally recommend that tentative beginners get the 100-400L, because it is more versatile, useful for large mammals and general ample-light telephoto subjects, and still light enough to be hand-holdable by average people. The tentative beginners probably don't expect to have to invest a lot of time into practice, and expect to get a high keeper rate right off the bat.
For committed beginners, especially "old school" folks like myself, who grew up without IS and without AF and who may have some experience panning moving subjects, the lightweight and well-balanced EF 400 f/5.6L is a superb lens for birds in flight. In the late 1960s and early 1970s I used to shoot horse jumping events (steeplechases, horse shows, three day events) with 135mm and 200mm lenses. I also had no illusions about the difficulty of locating and panning small songbirds with an 8X lens (the 400mm provides roughly same magnification as birding binoculars). I expected to fail at first. I practiced a lot on seagulls and random city park birds, and it took me about half a year (3 or 4 weekend mornings a month) to get reasonably proficient at shooting birds in flight. I use a monopod or tripod for "stake-outs" of stationary or non-flying targets (birds on nest, shorebirds). I do shoot at whatever ISO is needed to get a reasonable shutter speed, and deal with noise later.
I also frequently hand-hold my non-IS EF 180mm f/3.5L macro lens for available-light 1:4 to 1:2X close-up shots of shy organisms (insects, herps), with success. That's another excellent older EF lens, though I would recommend to others the Sigma OS 150 and 180mm versions that became available after I purchased the EF 180mm.
Upvote
0
Got an 80-200mm f/2.8 L magic drainpipe back when it was new, and still use it all the time. Probably my favorite overall lens and delivers more of my best work than any other single lens. When I mount it, I know I'll be able to get great images. I wish it was a little less heavy though!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
