Canon 35-70mm EOS f3.5

[ben_chernivsky]

Is this lens any good? I currently have a sigma 28-80/3.5 and its

cool, but I have heard canon has better optics.

On my canon d30 digital camera, will I notice an optical difference

between the two lenses? I know the 35-70 is not manufactured any

more, but hey...it can be had for cheap.

 

Let me know!

 

Ben

[maureen_m]

Here's what little I know: both Canon 35-70 lenses are <i>very</i> old models - the EF35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 was marketed in 1987, and the EF35-70mm f/3.5-4.5<b>A</b> was marketed in 1988 <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html">(According to the Canon Museum)</a>.<p>The difference between the two seems to be that the model ending in "A" was autofocus only - no manual focus option.<p>I had one of the "A" models but never used it so I can't comment on quality - it just came in handy for including with an old body I sold.

[mike_kim]

Call me an old ghost, but I did use it with my EOS 650/620 back in late 80's through early 90's. It was a kit-lens with 650 (even K-mart sold it). It's built-quality is better than current 28-80mm or 28-90mm kit lenses (similar to Mark I version of 50mm f/1.8 lens as oppose to MARK II version of 50mm f/1.8 lens, distance scale, metal mount, ...). It has a usable distance scale and manual focus ring is better than current kit lenses. Optical quality should be slightly better than current 28-80 or 28-90mm, but it is slow to focus and noisy. Frankly speaking, I would recommend save your $$$ and getting a Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

 

Oh yeah, optical quality of 35-70mm should be slightly better than your Sigma, but probably not noticable.

[PuppyDigs]

Mike has the old EF 35-70 3.5-4.5 pegged perfectly. I too owned one back in the day and it was a good lens as far as kit lenses go. Heck, I paid $100 for it, a lot of money in 1989! Although an inexpensive lens, it's much better built than current kit lenses: metal mount, distance scale, beefy plastic and decent optics (F3.5-4.5 max vs 4.0-5.6 for most cheapo normal zooms). With all that said, I wouldn't pay more than $50 for a minty one and wouldn't buy one unless on a strict budget. The EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM is an even better optic for only $200 new.

 

The true late 80s gem is the EF 28-70 3.5-4.5 MK II.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> First choice: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/samirkharusi/mighty_50.html">Canon 50/1.8</a>. </P>

 

<P> Second choice: <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#28105">Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM</a>. </P>

 

<P>Avoiding <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#kitlenses">cheapies</a> will only benefit your pictures. Do remember that spending a lot on a body and little on lenses is - photographically - a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whichdigitallens">very silly move</a>. It's like buying an excellent stereo system and attach it to a lousy speakers. A sheer waste of money. </P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[terence_tong1]

i second the 28-70 series 2, well build, wider than 35-70, get a hood and you are set,

that's of course if you are ONLY looking at old lens