Best discontinued lenses?

[Firefly]

I guess this questioned would be tailored toward the photog with a little time under their belt. What are some of the best lenses that are now out of production. I've read mentions of the 80-200 f/2.8, or a 70-210. This includes any third party lenses also.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Number 1

EF 200mm f1.8L USM

[edsarkiss]

amen to the 200/1.8 -- this is the sharpest 35mm lens photodo.com ever tested on their optical bench. that is saying a lot, considering they have benchmarked 419 35mm lenses!

[Belmondo]

I agree with CDS. The 200 f/1.8 is made out of unobtanium. It just keeps going up in value.

Among the rarer discontinued lenses, although not necessarily a highly prized one is the 50mm f1.0. (You read that right....f/1.0) I had one for a while, but decided it was too much money to have wrapped up in a lens that would get such little use, at least with me.

[ron chappel]

I haven't used the 100-300/5.6 L but it get's very good comments from owners and many still recommend it for buyers who want something better than the best consumer zooms but can't quite afford a new L.Note that it has a slightly limiting maximum aperture and slow focus
the 80-200/2.8 also get's much praise but no critical parts are made for it anymore so it's a slight risk
The 70-210 was indeed a good one + it has genuinely fast focus and decent build.It's replacement,the cheap 80-200/4-5.6, is a surprisingly sharp lens but ther older 70-210 is still better .Then again,the 70-210 has a brother-the still produced 100-300/4.5-5.6 .It's longer and can be bought new with a warrantee so the choice gets abit confusing.

Most other old lenses have been discontinued for good reason-the newer versions are both better and cheaper
You have to be a little carefull asking about good old lenses- some have better reputations than
they deserve!
This can happen several ways.It may be because a certain lens has allways been good (but the praise continues long after it's been outclassed by the newer designs).Or maybe the praise is taken out of context and endlessly repeated,etc

One interesting example is the EF 35-105/3.5-5.6 macro.Up until two years ago it was still getting very good prices 2nd hand because it had a 'good internet reputation'
The truth was that it is severely flogged by the 28-105/3.5-4.5.The 28-105 is better in EVERY way-in some aspects by so much that it's embarrassing to still see sellers trying to praise up the old lens

[BearSummer]

Hi Firefly,

I'm going to have to throw my hat into the 200 1.8 ring. The lens is just awsome, sharp and contrasty. Such a shame they stopped making it.

All the best

BearSummer

[Volatile]

What about the 50mm 1.8 Mk 1?

[Pef]

Recently, I've purchased a 300mm 4L not IS in very good shape.
It's lighter than its counterpart with IS and its very sharp.

I've also purchased a manfrotto monopod with ball head to use with and now, I'm training myself to avoid horizontal movement.

The only drawbacks is for landscape : with this focale the atmospheric haze is more a concern than with mush shorter focale.

PeF

[mdude85]

are you guys referring to the 70-210 f/4?

[FlyingPete]

Well it seems that in our part of the world, I can add the 28-105 f/3.5/4.5 for those of us with poskets no deep enough for some L glass!

[EoSD30fReAk]

i once got to use a 200mm f1.8 and that is the absolute nr 1

[ron chappel]

are you guys referring to the 70-210 f/4?
No,that one has a so-so reputation
The good one is the 70-210/3.5-4.5 - It looks identical to the current 100-300/4.5-5.6

[Ballen Photo]

What about the 50mm 1.8 Mk 1?I've got that lens, and LOVE it! Also have the 28-105 F/3.5-4.5 and used it for a walk around lens on my film cameras. It does a pretty good job on the 10D as well.

BTW, a friend in Illinois has the 200 F/1.8 and really likes it, but He's always off again and on again about selling it.:rolleyes:
Tom, If you research some of the older (FD I think it was) lenses, you'll find that Canon had the record for the worlds fastest "F stop", with a 50mm F/.95 lens. :shock:
"EDIT" Correction, it was an "S" mount lens for the Canon rangefinder camera.
Here's an exerpt from the Canon Museum online about this lens.
CANON 50mm f/0.95http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/l_product/s_50_095.jpgMarketedAugust 1961Original Price57,000 yenLens Construction (group)5Lens Construction (element)7No. of Diaphragm Blades10Minimum Aperture16Closest Focusing Distance (m)
1Maximum Magnifcation (x)--Filter Diameter (mm)72Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) 79 x 47.8Weight (g)605This lens is developed as one of the standard lenses for the Canon 7 rangefinder camera. It had the largest aperture in the world for photographic lenses available in the market at the time. It attracts a great deal of attention as a "dream lens", as it is four times faster than the human eye. The lens mount is clip-on, 3-lug bayonet system like the Mirror Box II (cameras have S mount inside bayonet mount). The edge of the rearmost lens element is cut off to avoid friction with interlocking roller of range finder mechanism. It is Gauss type lens with 7 elements in 5 groups.


-Bruce

[pradeep1]

There's a guy on eBay selling the 200 f/1.8 for around $4200 US. What a honking piece of glass!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=3866667920&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

With pictures:

1. http://user.fileserver.co.kr/yiron9/12966C1.jpg

2. http://user.fileserver.co.kr/yiron9/12966C2.jpg

I second the 28-105 lens vote.

[RockOne]

I'd say the 200mm f1.8 too, but unfortunately I don't have any experience with it to back up the claim :-) :-).

[mmartinfan]

anyone know much about the 28-70 F3.5-4.5 II
http://i8.ebayimg.com/01/i/03/34/08/ce_1_b.JPG

I just picked one up and know zero about it. Hope its ok

[darkdrakon]

let's not forget the 50-200 3.5-4.5 L

[kraterz]

If we're talking about lenses which most people can afford, then I'd chime in with the 28-70/2.8L. I could never dream of blowing up several thousand$ on a 200/1.8L, but the 28-70L is a superb performer at a low price. I paid less than US700$ for mine, second hand. It is a beautiful performer with stunning optics.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I forget all the time that they did replace the 28-70mmf/2.8L.. Very good choice,. and it's still in my bag as well with no desire at all to move to the 24-70mm ;) I paid $700.00 exactly :)

[ron chappel]

I'm not sure 50/0.95 lens above holds any official f-stop records - or maybe it's the fastest production lens?
There are several faster lenses around -the 50/0.7 zeiss is the most well known but there are others.
As i recall it was designed for taking pics of the far side of the moon.Stanley Kubrick managed to get hold of one due to some connections he had at NASA from working on '2001 a space oddessy'
He used it for inside candlelit shots on 'barry lyndon'

Overall though one couldn't possibly consider them great lenses.Put up against a common 50/1.4 ,they were worse at any comparable aperture.It's only the extra stops of light gathering ability that they are known for

...oh,and the fact that they look awsome!:D :D

[Ballen Photo]

I'm not sure 50/0.95 lens above holds any official f-stop records - or maybe it's the fastest production lens?
There are several faster lenses around -the 50/0.7 zeiss is the most well known but there are others.
As i recall it was designed for taking pics of the far side of the moon.Stanley Kubrick managed to get hold of one due to some connections he had at NASA from working on '2001 a space oddessy'
He used it for inside candlelit shots on 'barry lyndon'

Overall though one couldn't possibly consider them great lenses.Put up against a common 50/1.4 ,they were worse at any comparable aperture.It's only the extra stops of light gathering ability that they are known for

...oh,and the fact that they look awsome!:D :DRon, Sorry for the confusion. If you read what I said there, I only posted the lens for Tom's(Belmondo) benefit as a novelty per disscusion of large F stop lenses, NOT as one of the worlds best. ;)
The Zeiss 50mm that you speak of is interesting too, and I was not aware of it. :shock:
-Bruce

[blackviolet]

i love my 80-200 2.8L 'magic drainpipe'. and i'd love to get my hands on the 200 1.8...

[KevC]

I use my dad's EF35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 more than the kit lens. It's pretty good, I guess. Then again, I've never shot with anything else... and I've only had this camera for less than 2 weeks.

[kawter2]

I agree with CDS. The 200 f/1.8 is made out of unobtanium. It just keeps going up in value.

Among the rarer discontinued lenses, although not necessarily a highly prized one is the 50mm f1.0. (You read that right....f/1.0) I had one for a while, but decided it was too much money to have wrapped up in a lens that would get such little use, at least with me.


I used that lens the other day in samy's used dept, man the front emelent was HUGE!!! it seemed like i hooked a gocart tire to the front of my camera