Help, old lens question ef 28-70 3.5-4.5 MACRO

Good day,

 

Basic Question....Is the Canon ef 28-70 3.5-4.5 MACRO the original

Mark I of the 28-70 3.5-4.5 model? Or is it an entirely diff lens?

Is it the same as the 28-70 3.5-4.5 II (specs wise)? The word macro

through me off here so I wanted some clarification....If it is the

same lens, which one should I prefer...the macro or the II? And

finally what price would one expect to pay for it on the used

market? A neighbor has one and wants to sell it but I wanted to get

some info before I made an offer? Please help me out here guys, my

neighbor is moving in a couple of days so....

 

Thanks james

That's the original and it's da bomb, well at least back in the day (1987). It only lasted a

year before it was replaced by the MK II in 1988. Optically it's identical to the MK II but has

some minor physical changes. As I recall it was an expensive optic in the late 80s, costing

upwards of 400 calms at New York discounters. I couldn't afford one and had to make due

with the lowly EF 35-70 3.5-4.5.

 

Although it's a rare zoom, it ain't worth too much anymore. Consider than an EF 28

-105 3.5-4.5 USM LL is only $225 new and pretty much kicks Ef 28-70 3.5-4.5 arse. So I

personally wouldn't pay more than $50. Maybe $75 if it's mint and you want to do the guy

a favor.

Also, I think, (Puppy Face pls correct me if I am wrong as I never had the lens but once I have had one in my hands) it is difficult (if possible at all) to use filters as the front part with the filter thread retracts into the outher tube when zooming. Also, it must be a very bad lens if the 28-105mm 3,5-4,5 kicks it as I never found the 28-105 great (one Mark I. and one Mark II.) Maybe just my copies....

Istvan

Well we're talking consumer zooms not primes or L zooms. Most folks rarely enlarge past

4 x 6 and maybe a 5 x 7 or 8 x 10 once or twice a decade. Nevertheless, my old EF 28-105

3.5-4.5 USM gave up some pretty dad burn fine 11 x 14 prints.

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> Optically, the 28-70/3.5-4.5 Mk II is <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2870_3545/index.htm">amazingly good</a> and if Mk I is optically identical to Mk II.... <b></b> </p>

 

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

I bought the 28~70/3.5~4.5II with my EOS-1 in 1990 - it was regarded sufficiently highly by Canon to be the lens they used to illustrate the EOS-1 manual, but then again the lens line-up was pretty meagre at that time. I never liked it, and took the opportunity to change to the 28~105 when it came out. Between the two (I never had one) there was the short-lived 28~80USM (the original one was a ring-USM consumer-grade lens; later 28~80s were optically different budget-grade junk) that was not around long enough to acquire the sort of reputation that it probably deserved.

The 28-70/3.5-4.5 has been a cult lens for years. It is VERY sharp stopped down and is Canon's best-ever consumer zoom. There are some differences between the original and the Mk II. The original had all metal internal gears and this was replaced with plastic in the newer edition. The aspherical element was moved to a different position in the formula of the model II and there are some small differences optically between the two in favor of the II. This is the standard lens on my D30 and also gets to work on my 3 and 7N on sunny days.

 

The original 28-80/3.5-5.6 did have the ring USM but optically it was about the same as all of the later 28-80s. The 28-70 puts them all to shame not to mention all of Canon's other and newer consumer zooms. Of course the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM is nicer to work with but does not give better optical performance. You have to get an L lens to beat it.

I use an EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 as my main lens on my 10D. It is certainly sharp enough for my purposes! The following is a 100% pixel view, taken at 70mm, f/8.<div></div>

..and for reference here is a reduced size version of the whole frame.<div></div>

I would be most interested in reading any other posts folks might wish to make comparing the Mk.I and Mk.II versions of the 28-70... Prices seem to always be higher for used Mk.IIs, but the Mk.Is aren't dirt cheap, so I certainly couldn't afford both.

 

Is the Mk.I close enough by, say, f/8 to the Mk.II that having one would give a person no good reason to keep looking for a Mk.II?