5-200 L any good?

[frank_bunnik]

Hi, on the site of the Canon Camera museum I came across the 3.5-4.5

50-200 L lens. Does anybody know if this lens is any good? I am

looking for a cheap lens in the 200mm range and this might be ideal,

although I have never seen this lens in a shop here in Holland. Since

there is no picture of the lens on that site, can I compare it's

outward appearance to the 5.6 100-300 L lens or the 4.0 70-210 lens?

 

Thanks, Frank

[PuppyDigs]

The EF 50-200 3.5-4.5L is a very rare bird. It is reputed to be optically excellent but has slow front element extension focus and coarse manual focus action. I have only run across a few used examples in the last 10 years and they command top dollar, e.g., $500-600 USA. If you want a decent but cheap zoom in this range, try the EF 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM. Mint ones go for about $200 and beaters for $100 at KEH.com

 

Yes, it looks almost exactly like the EF 100-300 5.6L.

[frank_bunnik]

Thanks, that's a lot more than I expected it would cost secondhand. For that price I would rather pay a little bit more and get the 4.0 70-200 L. I would prefer an L lens over a cheap consumer lens.

 

About 10 years ago I used a 4.0 70-210 lens for a while. I still like the slides I took with this lens. I know photodo does not rate the lens very high but they only test by MTF ratings which is useless so I don't give them any credit. A while back the camera museum offered more info on out of production lenses. I saw in the diagram then that this lens (the 4.0 70-210) has an apo element. Is it realy such a bad lens? I know it is a push-pull zoom, it has a rotating front element and that it does not have USM or FTM. But what about optical and mechanical quality? It does have a metal lens tube and a constant aperture of 4.0 over the entire range. This lens can be had in excellent state for about 125 euro/us dollar.

 

Looking forward to any reactions.

 

Frank

[isaac sibson]

The general consensus is that although not bad, the 70-210 F4 is not as good as either 50-200L (which does have a good rep) or 70-210 F3.5-4.5 USM. Of course, the 70-200 F4L is the modern equivalent, and has a fearsome reputation (and I wouldn't let mine go).

[rainer_kroenke]

There is told a lot on nonsense about the 70-210 lenses ! I had them all - just sold my EF 2,8/70-200 L because of weight. Now I have both the 4.0/70-210 and the 50-200 L and can compare with my sisters new

EF 4.0/70-200L (white). Contrast of the 4.0/70-210 is superb and at least as good, as the new L, though Photodo gave a bad MTF result. Usually I trust them, but they also make mistakes sometimes and MTF is a very critical thing. The 50-200 L has only minor advantages over the old 4.0/70-210. Keep it !

 

Regards from Germany - Rainer