Canon 70-210 lenses

[pablo_s]

Canon EF 70-210 lenses seem to be selling rather cheaply on the

auction site. From what I've heard, they're among the best consumer

lenses Canon has made. I have a few questions.

 

First, it looks like there are 2 such lenses: a 3.5/4.5, and a fixed

f/4 aperture. Are these lenses very different? How do they compare?

 

Second, what would be a fair price for these lenses? I don't want to

end up overpaying. I can't afford an L telephoto right now, so my

alternative would be a cheapo 75-300 (I've had one of those before

and although it wasn't too terrible for my amateurish use it looks

like the 70-210 is overall a better lens, true USM, faster, sharper).

 

Thanks in advance!

[buck_rogers1]

I believe the 3.5/4.5 is much sharper than the fixed f/4. I've never used the 3.5/4.5 but I used to own the the f/4 and I really hated it. It has a push/pull zoom that sucks a ton of dust and creaps to the long end at the slightest incline. I've also read that the 3.5/4.5 is really fast to AF--faster than the 70-200 f/4 L (which I own and is just amazing for a zoom). I would completely avoid the f/4 unless you can get it for well under $100 which would make it nearly disposable. I can't say about the 3.5/4.5; maybe check KEH sale price and buy price(faux online quote as if you were selling to them). From my experience, the 75-300's are nearly unusable past 200 anyway so...

[robin_sibson1]

AFAIK, the only good thing to be said for the old-style 70~210/4 is that it has a constant f/4 aperture, which may be relevant if you are using it with a -3/-1v/-1Danything because it will give you high-precision focusing at the central focus point. Mechanically it is similar to the 50~200 and 100~300 zooms made at the same period (nasty, in other words, as even fans of the 100~300L admit), and optically no-one seems to have a good word for it. By comparison, the 70~210/3.5~4.5USM is quite highly regarded; mechanically it is similar to the still-in-production 100~300USM, and those who have used it speak well of its optical quality, although no-one claims it is in the 70~200/4L league.

[lotsawa]

I sold my used 75-300 and got a used 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM after I've read this <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox3.htm">this</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-210">this</a>. It feels much better built, has fast USM autofocus and I think better image quality (though I couldn't do a direct comparison). Image quality may decline a bit at the long end.

[rob_murray]

I have owned them both. The F4 version is ancient and the manual

focus is very rough, the autofocus is slow and noisey. Picture

wise it was OK. The later 3.5-4.5 model was much better in all

respects. If you can find one since they discontinued them a

few years ago..BTW I have the 75-300USM and it delivers good

pictures if I do my part it is as sharp as the 100-300USM....

I have owned several of them too.

[pablo_s]

Thanks a lot for the advice. It seems that the f/4 version is much easier to get, but based on your comments I'll stay away from it. The f/3.5-4.5 seems to be a good compromise between the 75-300 and the 70-200/4 L; I certainly don't expect it to be in the same league as the latter. KEH asks $126 for a 70-210 3.5/4.5 in LN condition, but is not currently selling it.

[erik_pettersson]

I recently purchased a 70-210 3.5-4.5 and I'm pretty happy with it. It replaced the 80-200 4.5-5.6 but, while I havent used that much shooting with it nor made any particular comparisons, it doesnt really strike me as sharper (findings along these lines can be viewed at http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=1170&page_number=1).

 

However, autofocus is quicker, and the lens feels better (subjective and not important to everyone, but to me it's an important feature). I got mine from Keh.com for $160 i think. Also, you gain a stop compared to consumer zooms reaching all the way to 300mm.

 

Im happy with my purchase, hope you will be too.

 

Erik P.

[taner]

Here is a self-celebrating post about the same lens:

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009k4o">The EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM</a></p>

 

Once again, the photo.net review of this lens will tell you what it is good for: stopping down to f/8 on a tripod, and light traveling while taking snapshots; Having said that, I have no doubt it would yield pleasing results up to 8x10 around f/5.6-11.

<p>

Why not go for a new 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM lens (with the same ripping AF), and use it mostly in the 100-200 range, where it is said to be decent, and have the bonus option of shooting at 300 for 4x6, 5x7 prints?

<p>

What do I use for telephoto? Just EF 100/2 for now. When I have suffered enough from long lens envy, 200/2.8 or 300/4 will follow; when I nail that rare good tele shot on the head, I want to be able print it real big.<div></div>

[John Crowe]

My 70-210 f3.5-4.5 lens is quite capable and light. I have tested this lens specifically at approximately 85mm and at 210mm. Sweet spot is definitely closer to the 85mm end rather than full telephoto, but still reasonable zoomed out. The 70-210 I have is sharper than the Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 ATX I tested it against. Of course you don't get f2.8 with the Canon. The USM in the Canon lens is sensational too! I recommend it, good luck.

[alexdi]

I have one. It's light, quick, and useful. The problem is, I've also got a 100/2. Good as the 70-210 is, that it's a consumer zoom becomes painfully obvious when I get back rolls in which I've used both lenses.

 

But at that price, there is nothing better. It certainly outperforms the 80-200/4-5.6 kit lenses.

 

DI

[theoldmoose]

I had a 70-210 f/4 I bought used about two years ago, for about $135 (w/hood) in a local shop. I used it extensively for almost a year with a Digital Rebel, and then traded it in for $100 to get a 70-300 DO IS.

 

It certainly was worth the $35 I spent on it to use it for a year, and I took a lot of nice shots with it that I simply wouldn't have gotten if I had had no zoom at all.

 

So, all things considered, it's better to have a not-so-good zoom than no telephoto reach at all.

 

Adjust your sights appropriately. 8-)