EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens

[sjprg]

You know I have never seen a discussion of the EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens. I wonder why? At $85.00 it is a good starter lens, and seems to be an execelent walk around lens. The MTF curve seem ideal for the 10D. I have one I use for hiking and am very happy with it.

[Jim Larson]

You know I have never seen a discussion of the EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens. I wonder why? At $85.00 it is a good starter lens, and seems to be an execelent walk around lens. The MTF curve seem ideal for the 10D. I have one I use for hiking and am very happy with it.

It's as good as any kit lens. It's a bit older (metal mount??), which is why it doesn't get discussed much.

Perfectly fine until you can afford (and start using) better glass.

[fwhitesides]

You know I have never seen a discussion of the EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens. I wonder why? At $85.00 it is a good starter lens, and seems to be an execelent walk around lens. The MTF curve seem ideal for the 10D. I have one I use for hiking and am very happy with it.

The price is good, but I would avoid it as a starter or first lens simply because it isn't nearly wide enough to be an "all around" type of lens. 28mm and 24mm are good on the wide end of the focal length, but even they are pushing it on non full-frame digitals. Really, 18mm is the minimum in wide angle, in my opinion (again, for the non full-frame digitals). Then again, I shoot lots of landscapes, and cannot function properly without at least a minimum wideangle perspective. Your mileage may vary.

Also, the lens is quite slow, even for a cheapie zoom. I think it would be a good walking around lens in very well lit and wide open places. As you use it for hiking, this might be the case, although I can't help to wonder what amazing shots you could be taking with a 24mm or wider lens.

[sjprg]

Well I do have an EF 24mm f/2.8 that I use in the open, and a EF 70-200 F2.8L that is too big for hiking and takes crappy pictures at any distance over about 30 feet. I also have a Sigma 50-500 that I use for wildlife that is probably the best bang for the photography buck I have ever found but it is surely not a hiking lens. Therefore the 35-80 serves for casual in the woods hiking and allows some sembelance of closeup if needed. My 75-300 is a good zoo lens I've found.

I have thought about going below 24mm but I just don't care for the images produced by shorter lenses, plus the cost of a decent one.

Images from the various lenses are found at www.pbase.com/sjprg

[DaveG]

Well I do have an EF 24mm f/2.8 that I use in the open, and a EF 70-200 F2.8L that is too big for hiking and takes crappy pictures at any distance over about 30 feet. I also have a Sigma 50-500 that I use for wildlife that is probably the best bang for the photography buck I have ever found but it is surely not a hiking lens. Therefore the 35-80 serves for casual in the woods hiking and allows some sembelance of closeup if needed. My 75-300 is a good zoo lens I've found.

I have thought about going below 24mm but I just don't care for the images produced by shorter lenses, plus the cost of a decent one.

Images from the various lenses are found at www.pbase.com/sjprg

I've got a 24-85 f3.5-4.5 lens that I got as my first lens for the 10D. It was a great first lens too, with a moderate wide angle to telephoto application. It is fairly small and very light. Optically it may not be a L lens, but I've gotten excellent results. I've thought about getting the 24-70 f2.8 but the 2.8 speed in those focal lengths isn't worth paying a premium for. So I can see where you like the 35-80.

One of these days you may discover the joy of super wide angle lenses and then all this 16 mm and 14 mm stuff will be clear. If your head isn't in it you won't get it at all. This isn't right or wrong, it just is the way it is. When I worked at a newspaper one editor asked me, "Why do you use your 20 mm (a 12 mm on the Canon 10D) so much?" and my answer was, "Because I don't have anything wider."

[fwhitesides]

"Why do you use your 20 mm (a 12 mm on the Canon 10D) so much?" and my answer was, "Because I don't have anything wider."

Amen to that! For most of the shots I "see" as I'm walking around, a wide-angle lens is the only thing for the job. Of course, I'm also partial to beefy telephotos, but wide-angle will always be my weapon of choice.

[sjprg]

Maybe Sigma's 12-24 someday. Right now I'm going to wait and see what the Feb trade show brings. Maybe some neat new lenses?

Paul

[Jim Larson]

Maybe Sigma's 12-24 someday. Right now I'm going to wait and see what the Feb trade show brings. Maybe some neat new lenses?

Paul

On my wish list is a $500 24-70/4L.

That may make me ditch my 3 primes (24/35/50) in favor of a zoom. :)

But that may just divert me from my 300/4LIS + 1.4TC aspirations :)

[psoup216]

You know I have never seen a discussion of the EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens. I wonder why? At $85.00 it is a good starter lens, and seems to be an execelent walk around lens. The MTF curve seem ideal for the 10D. I have one I use for hiking and am very happy with it.


Wow, sorry for dragging up the OLD thread but I own this lens. It was given to me when I bought my XTi. Even as a newbie to photography, I found it fairly useless. 35mm wasn't wide enough to do any real work, and 80mm zoom? Well, not a whole lot gained there either. Further, I had no idea Canon would make something so completely plastic and cheap!!!!

The only thing decent about it is that it's as light as a penny. That's because there isn't a piece of metal of any kind in it.

[Madweasel]

This must be a record for 'oldest thread resurrected'!

Yes, I don't think the lens has much to offer the modern DSLR user.

[Canon Bob]

Yes, I don't think the lens has much to offer the modern DSLR user.

Surprisingly, it does make a reasonable attempt at macro if reverse mounted onto an EF18-55

Bob

[Scooter B]

EF 35-80mm 1:4-5.6 III

Resurecting old thread yet again as I couldn't resist buying one for $5 to tinker with. It was labeled as broken and I figured it could be handy for parts etc if nothing else.

The obvious broken part in looking at the lense visually is the internal mount that would be closest to the camera is a good 3-5mm off center. Sounds like it took a pretty good fall or someone opened it up and couldn't or didn't get it back together right.

My main concern in attempting to use it if I repair or modify it for unique purpose is an electrical short to my camera.

Q1. Are my concerns about a potential short causing damage valid and if so are there any ways using a voltimeter to check it for safety ?

Q2. Any ideas about possible mods to make it usefull or interesting for DSLR applications on an XSI?

Currently I have a decent macro zoom thats my walk around lens, a 100-400 L, the two kit lenses and a 50 prime so the lower numbers drew my interest for as a potential wide lens aoolication (wider than anything I currently have available anyway) but I didn't realize it was of EOS film vintage because the sign claimed it was AF/IS....the AF part is true however I see no reference to IS anywhere on the lens.

Q3 Any links for DIY franken lens sites?

If nothing else I was going to build a land periscope for kicks for my daughters play fort and there could be some usefull glass (plastic), focusing mechanisms....

[Scooter B]

$5 lens now working!

Probably could have bought in working condition for $30 or so it looks like on e-bay but its a moral victory at least considering a few less daunting repair attempts that went badly in wasted time and frustration.

Once I figured out how to get inside it was pretty basic. One ribon that appeared fine and no visible cracks to circuit boards.

The center zoom/fpcus carriage (for lack of knowing correct term) was in essence cross threaded with the internal lenses wayyyyy off axis.

A careful survey of parts and accessable screws, step by step notes for reassebly reference and some pics along the way for my bread crumb trail and I simply lifted the center carriage up and just barely out of the outer/front of the lens casing and it slid right back into place on axis.

Some judicial use of lens cleaning fluid/cloth and puffs of air to leave no finger prints etc but of course this was far from a controlled clean room environment.

AF works and communicates nicely but definately not a good low light lens which I knew going in.

I'll have to do some comparisons on the width and quality of this 35-80mm to the kit lens...crap I had to go look for it and discovered its 18-55 3.5-5. something and does have IS.... not sure I gained much there as my macro zoom already had anything covered this new one might add past the 55 of the kit lens with better quality.

Well I'll keep it around for kicks and perhaps keep a effect filter on it just to see what works.

[Madweasel]

Well done! Must be quite a feeling of accomplishment, even though the lens itself is nothing special.