# Your favorite older EF lens



## jeffa4444 (Aug 29, 2014)

Back in 1987 I bought the Canon film EOS 650 the launch camera along with the EOS 620 of the EF system, it came with a 35-70mm zoom. I quickly followed this with the EF28mm f2.8 and I still retain all three today but only really use the EF28 f2.8 lens. 

This lens in over 26 years has never left my camera bag and for its size & weight and for the great pictures it has produced will remain there. Yes the EF28 2.8 IS lens introduced two years ago is supposed to be better but Im not filling street posters so for my prints which are no bigger than A3 its perfect. A true testiment to the designers of its day.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 29, 2014)

400mm f/5.6L, the oldest lens still in the current lineup. Lightweight, well-balanced, fast AF, sharp, affordable - the perfect birding lens for beginners and those on a budget.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 29, 2014)

dunno ...

i think i have a 28-90 somewhere in a drawer
most of my EF glass is pretty new

i do have an FD600 f4.5 that is older than I am though...


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 29, 2014)

NancyP said:


> 400mm f/5.6L, the oldest lens still in the current lineup. Lightweight, well-balanced, fast AF, sharp, affordable - the perfect birding lens for beginners and those on a budget.


 ^ Yupp, I agree exactly with what she said!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2014)

I have the great 100mm F2 USM.  This jewel was underestimated by many photographers who know only the 100mm F2.8 macro. :


----------



## BLFPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

Hands down favorite older lens 50mm f/1.8 Mk I. (the metal mount version with the distance scale). I still have mine after more than 20 years. It has been replaced by the 40mm pancake as my walk-around street lens, but that may be short lived. I still love the look of that 50 for B&W street. 


My old 24mm f/2.8 would be a very close second. I would say I "mistakenly" sold it if you ask me today. I should have kept it. But I sold it when I had, variously, the 17-40 L, 24-105 L, and 24-70 L. I wish I had it today as a small, lightweight complement to the 40mm pancake for my "running" kit that I carry while running and covering ultramarathons. Sometimes I need something wider, and the 17-40 is just too much lens to carry when I'm running for hours around 50 or 100 mile running routes trying to get the shots.


----------



## Lurker (Aug 29, 2014)

Magic Drain Pipe, 80-200 f/2.8


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2014)

50mm f/1.8 MkI. Hands down 8)



BLFPhoto said:


> My old 24mm f/2.8 would be a very close second. I would say I "mistakenly" sold it if you ask me today. I should have kept it. But I sold it when I had, variously, the 17-40 L, 24-105 L, and 24-70 L. I wish I had it today as a small, lightweight complement to the 40mm pancake for my "running" kit that I carry while running and covering ultramarathons. Sometimes I need something wider, and the 17-40 is just too much lens to carry when I'm running for hours around 50 or 100 mile running routes trying to get the shots.



I recently bought a 24mm f/2.8 with the original hood. It's a totally cool little wide angle. Makes you wonder why all these lenses are so large nowadays.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 29, 2014)

My old EF 20-35/2.8L. Compact, light, built like a tank. I used to take it EVERYWHERE, but not so much any more. (Sigh.)


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 29, 2014)

The 300 f/4. Light, sort-of cheap, great images out of it.

Jim


----------



## lintoni (Aug 29, 2014)

100mm f2.8 macro - the first prime I bought, back in film days, the oldest lens I have that I still use...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

50 f1.4 and 15 f2.8 fisheye.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Aug 29, 2014)

Another vote for the 50/1.8 (the MkI as we now call it!). I've had mine from new so it must be heading for 25 years old, and I still use it.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 29, 2014)

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, mounted on a xxD.


----------



## Daniel 78d (Aug 29, 2014)

50mm 1.8 mark I


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 29, 2014)

EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. 

This is the only lens I own that Canon released prior to 2005. My copy was manufactured in 6/2003, and I bought it a month later, back when I was shooting with a 10D. 

Don't use it very often, but never disappointed when I do.


----------



## xps (Aug 29, 2014)

100mm Macro 2.8 USM bought in the 90ies...


----------



## nda (Aug 29, 2014)

EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye 8)


----------



## nc0b (Aug 30, 2014)

I have both the 300mm f/4 and the 400mm f/5.6 classic lenses. Generally used for wildlife, BIF and snapping candids in the park. Not too big or heavy, easily handhold able, and produce sharp images. Usually shoot with a 5D classic or 6D, but will pick a 40D or 60D for small birds.


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2014)

My 1987 300mm f2.8 non-IS is still crushing it out of the park. I've had to have the diaphragm replaced but the AF motor is still going strong (knock wood) and its sharper than a Colbert Correspondents Dinner speech, even with a 2x TC. I love that thing to pieces and I hope it never ever dies. Knock wood.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 30, 2014)

50mm 1.8
135mm f/2
80-200mm f/2.8


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 30, 2014)

85mm 1.8 usm
28mm 1.8 usm

used to have the 20mm 2.8 usm but that lens SUCKED.


----------



## MxM (Aug 30, 2014)

Canon 70-200mm/2.8 (non IS)
Canon 50mm/1.4
Sigma 14mm/2.8


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 30, 2014)

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.


----------



## Vgramatikov (Sep 2, 2014)

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.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 2, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> 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.
> ...



Yes that 24-105/4 IS is a superb lens.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2014)

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.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 3, 2014)

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.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Sep 3, 2014)

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.


----------



## pwp (Sep 3, 2014)

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


----------



## e17paul (Sep 3, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro.



+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.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > 400mm f/5.6L, the oldest lens still in the current lineup. Lightweight, well-balanced, fast AF, sharp, affordable - the perfect birding lens for beginners and those on a budget.
> ...



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.


----------



## procentje20 (Sep 3, 2014)

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!


----------



## streestandtheatres (Sep 3, 2014)

AlanF said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP 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.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2014)

streestandtheatres said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DominoDude 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


----------



## streestandtheatres (Sep 3, 2014)

AlanF said:


> streestandtheatres said:
> 
> 
> > 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/


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 3, 2014)

AlanF said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


Art M could probably buy whatever lens he needs without considering cost, and with that in mind I understand his position.
"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.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 3, 2014)

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.


----------



## spacetimeroger (Sep 3, 2014)

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!


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 3, 2014)

45 or 90 TSE


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 3, 2014)

NancyP said:


> 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,





I'd say a tentative _beginner_ is more interested in an EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II !!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 3, 2014)

AlanF said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



I sold mine because the minimum focus distance made it useless for filling a frame with a small bird. I couldn't get it into my camera bag either, it was too long.

It is a good and well built lens, but needs the right subject and the right photographer. Definitely not the best for beginners.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 3, 2014)

Mine is the EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.

I considered upgrading to the EF 8-15mm f/4 L, but

1. I have no interest in a circular fisheye.

2. It's not supported by DxO, and I'm uncertain which software would defish it.

3. I haven't seen any IQ comparisons (at 15mm only, of course).

4. It's expensive, and considering the above - I find it hard to justify the upgrade.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Sep 3, 2014)

"Oldies but goodies":

1. Lens I have now - the 300mm non-IS. I live where there are few used lenses so when it showed upon CraigsList I bought it. $700. It's the longest I have, not counting the 2x extender(II) I never seem to fit onto anything. I know the 2x and the 300 are not a good pair...

2. Lens I wish I still had - 35mm TSE FD mount - the lens that made me switch from Nikon to Canon in 1974 (I think I have the year right... 1975?) I currently use the 17, 24, 45, and 90 TSE's. For some years I had the 17 and the 45 and wanted something in between for interiors. 45 just not right most of the time, at least for my clients. Good food lens, though. Yes, I once put the 17mm on the 2x extender on a shoot and just the sight of it gave me the willies. Results not good enough to get over it. Client happy but not me.

Fun thread. Hearing about lenses I never knew about.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 3, 2014)

Forgot about teh 200mm F/1.8L


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 3, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DominoDude said:
> ...



Sure, we're all different. Thankfully the subject was "*Your* favorite older EF lens", and I could agree with NancyP and her reasonings.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 4, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> 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.



I've had both and they were both very good for a 10X+ lens, I much preferred the 28-300mm IS. Copy variations might explain your issue.

One of the most unusual (not the best) was this power zoom.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

> Your favorite older EF lens



That would be a 50mm f1.4 or f1.8.. because there is no new 50mm. 

Well i don´t know if you count the 50mm f1.2 to the old lenses already.
But that lens is something special anyway.


----------



## Steve (Sep 5, 2014)

AlanF 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.



Couldn't disagree more. The 400 f5.6 is very light and maneuverable; totally handholdable even at lower shutter speeds. In fact, I'd actually encourage beginners to forego IS in order to force them to learn proper technique before relying on technology to make the pictures for them. Another issue is that at shutter speeds where IS becomes necessary, the bird's own movements will blur the shot. Maybe not a problem shooting herons standing rock still but definitely an issue with the smaller birds you're talking about. IS is great but I've been doing totally fine without it shooting handheld with a 300 f2.8 non-IS + 2x TC and I think the sharpness and weight advantage of the 400 prime makes it pretty ideal for the beginner.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Sep 13, 2014)

I have the 50m 1.8 mk 1 love it also a 20-35 3.5-4.5 usm both bought used love it too had to get a 10-22 efs to get real wide-angle but It was a wonderful match for my t1i. I used the 20-35 the most when I took my trip to japan fallowed by the 28-135 lens and now I just bought the 400 5.6l usm for the fall migration. I could no longer wait for the Tamron 150-600. I can say I love the 400 5.6l lens with out is. yes I have missed shots and this is just a hand held shot ps. sorry the first image was too big


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 13, 2014)

EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM. A very sharp lens!


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 13, 2014)

The lens I miss the most is the 15 mm fisheye. Hands down the sharpest fisheye lens I have ever used. Even when I due distortion correction, it is still sharper than most of the rectilinear wide angle lenses I have used.


----------



## jhpeterson (Sep 13, 2014)

The first EF lens I ever bought was a 300/2.8 L (the original non-IS version) more than 23 years ago. Over the succeeding years it's my been favorite and probably most-used lens. In fact, I'm still regularly using a second one I bought as a replacement a decade ago.
Canon seemed to hit it out of the park with this one, as it still is an equal to the late-model 70-200 and 500 lenses I own.


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 13, 2014)

You know the one lens I haven't seen mentioned yet is the mythical 50 mm F 1.0. I rented one once. For a couple of days just so I could say I have held one. May not have been the sharpest lens in the bag but it is by far one of the most unique and controversial lenses canon has made.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 13, 2014)

Started with 40d + 50mm f1.4


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 13, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> You know the one lens I haven't seen mentioned yet is the mythical 50 mm F 1.0. ... May not have been the sharpest lens in the bag but it is by far one of the most unique and controversial lenses canon has made.



What's controversial about it?


----------



## tcphoto (Sep 13, 2014)

My oldest EF is a 35L, it can still produce beautiful images despite comparisons to the Sigma. A nine year old design can rarely outperform a new design but I'll keep mine anyway.


----------



## pulseimages (Mar 27, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> Tanispyre said:
> 
> 
> > You know the one lens I haven't seen mentioned yet is the mythical 50 mm F 1.0. ... May not have been the sharpest lens in the bag but it is by far one of the most unique and controversial lenses canon has made.
> ...



Despite its price and large maximum aperture, the 1.0L was not a particularly sharp lens at any aperture, and the two cheaper 50mm options offered far better sharpness when stopped down beyond about f/2.8.


----------



## e17paul (Mar 27, 2015)

Mine is the EF 50/2.5 compact macro. More versatile than the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, released in 1987 and still current in Canon's website. I bought mine new in 2013. It spends most of its time on my camera, I zoom with my feet as far as possible, and swap in the 24 IS and 70-300L when needs must. I just wish it could have fast USM. 

Another favourite, but less often useful is the 15/2.8 fisheye. Excellent when it has opportunity to shine, and autofocus is not relevant on such a short focal length, in all other respects I can find no fault. This was also part of Canon's initial EF range in 1987, only discontinued in recent years. 

Also from the film era is my Vivitar 19-35, which I use for tight interiors where the 24 just isn't wide enough. I'm considering my options on its replacement.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 27, 2015)

None so far. Closest for me was the EF 100/2.0 - i liked the focal length on APS-C, combined with the speed and compact size of the lens. But lack of IS and even more so horrible CA ("purple fringing", 4 pixels wide on any fine structure in the background and on hard contrast edges) made me sell it. 
I still got a 50/1.4 but don't use it much. Also mainly due to LoCAs. 
Old EF zooms i had the 28-135 once. Liked the zoom range but hated the softness and the 1-stop only IS system and the wobbling of the dual cam lens tubes. 

Happy with canons new L IS II zoom line. Would consider good new version of 50/1.4 IS and 100/2.0 IS, if reasonably priced. 

Older EF lenses ... meh.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 27, 2015)

tcphoto said:


> My oldest EF is a 35L, it can still produce beautiful images despite comparisons to the Sigma. A nine year old design can rarely outperform a new design but I'll keep mine anyway.



+1 for the 35 L, but it's not 9 years old, it's 17.

Another I have always loved the output from, but never owned, is the 200 f1.8 L.


----------



## chas1113 (Mar 27, 2015)

JumboShrimp said:


> 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.



I still have my 100-300L AFD push-pull zoom. It's now paired with a new SL-1 body and makes an excellent hiking setup. It's AF is loud/buzzy and sort of slow, but the optics are still great and at 695 grams it's super light. I also have the newer 70-300L, but pound for pound, the ancient 100-300L can't be beat. And, it's black!

—chas


----------



## Ekychoi (Mar 28, 2015)

The magic drain pipe (80-200 L) which I don't own but love the pictures that I had taken with it.


----------

