Canon EF 70-210mm f/4

[kandyredcoi]

well, did a search didnt really see a thread for this lens so here it is...lets show some love for Canon's old school 70-210 f/4 push/pull zoom lens

i guess i can start, here are a few shot with my 5d2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/nature%20landscapes/IMG_9411.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/nature%20landscapes/IMG_9412.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/transportation/IMG_9408.jpg

[friz]

I'll add a couple

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f184/frizz1/IMG_1983-2.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f184/frizz1/IMG_1438.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

^sweet pics!!!

[friz]

I bought this lens to try out the focal length before investing in the L lens. I am now finding it hard to part with this one to buy the L lens. Go figure.

[Rudeofus]

It's one of these lenses you get at some point in your life and then you're stuck with it for the rest of your life. You get all the big glass, but unlike the big glass the 70-210 sits in your bag when you need it. There are sharper lenses in this range, but they don't do 1:4 macro or weigh 3 times as much and more (hence you don't take them with you casually). You think you need a lens with faster AF but realize that even fast paced sport activities can be covered well with this lens.

[Rudeofus]

So to conclude this double post: this lens is an excellent cure against gear aquisition syndrome and has saved me a lot of money. I accept that the 70-200 F/4 L IS is a better lens but I wouldn't spend the price difference on it.

And to state it again: because it is so small and light weight this lens is there when you need it and when you least expected that you will need it.

[kandyredcoi]

And to state it again: because it is so small and light weight this lens is there when you need it and when you least expected that you will need it.

+1

unless your hardcore and dont mind lugging the long white lenses around

this lil lens is great especially outdoors!!!

[kandyredcoi]

took this pic on the MACRO setting in my home built mini studio
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/camera%20gear/IMG_1572.jpg

[Mike Deep]

I had this lens and hated it so much I gave it away after replacing it with a 70-210 USM and a 70-200 f4L.

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/443344694_vciTb-L.jpg

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/500173642_iH3aC-L.jpg

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/528356489_LFCJg-L.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

^i can tell how much u hated it ;) great shots

[Rudeofus]

Mike, nobody would doubt the 70-200 F/2.8 L IS to be better/faster/quicklier focusing/sharper/offering IS/whatever, but not to the degree that I would spend 15 times the price of my 70-210 F/4 on it. Nobody would doubt the 70-200 F/4 L to be better/quicklier focusing/sharper/whatever, but not to the degree that I would spend 5 times the price of my 70-210 F/4 on it. And the thrill of lens uber sharpness wears off pretty quickly IMHO. The thing many owners hate about this lens is knowing there are better lenses out there (call it gear acqisition syndrome if you want).

[Mike Deep]

My biggest problem with this lens was the horrific CA, especially in OOF transition areas. Second was the focus speed, that annoying noise it made, and the awful manual focus ring (It's like it shipped with sand inside). Third was the schizophrenic bokeh, which looked like a mirror lens at times. I would probably put sharpness fourth on this list. It wasn't terribly sharp, but that alone wasn't enough to ditch the lens.

FWIW the 70-210 USM I found only cost about half ($60) of what I paid for the f4 ($135) and is better in almost every respect. The only thing I haven't really tried with it is close focus, since I have several lenses better suited to those tasks now. The L's are in a different league, of course.

[kandyredcoi]

My biggest problem with this lens was the horrific CA, especially in OOF transition areas. Second was the focus speed, that annoying noise it made, and the awful manual focus ring (It's like it shipped with sand inside). Third was the schizophrenic bokeh, which looked like a mirror lens at times. I would probably put sharpness fourth on this list. It wasn't terribly sharp, but that alone wasn't enough to ditch the lens.

FWIW the 70-210 USM I found only cost about half ($60) of what I paid for the f4 ($135) and is better in almost every respect. The only thing I haven't really tried with it is close focus, since I have several lenses better suited to those tasks now. The L's are in a different league, of course.

yea the slow focus is probably my only pet peeve about the lens :cool:

[Rudeofus]

My biggest problem with this lens was the horrific CA, especially in OOF transition areas. Second was the focus speed, that annoying noise it made, and the awful manual focus ring (It's like it shipped with sand inside). Third was the schizophrenic bokeh, which looked like a mirror lens at times. I would probably put sharpness fourth on this list. It wasn't terribly sharp, but that alone wasn't enough to ditch the lens.

I never noticed CA with this lens but to be honest I never looked too hard for it, it wasn't obvious to me at least (and yes, I own the 85L, so I know what CA looks like :)). We agree that sharpness is less than stellar, especially @210mm and wide open. The small manual auto focus ring could be better, but apparently small MF rings were the big rage back then when the lens was designed, just look at Canon's other ugly ducklings. AF clearly does not sound like USM but this hasn't bothered me so far. Hey, it's a 100 € lens after all.

What really surprized my was your complaint about bokeh. My sunset picture above shows beautiful blur which easily matches the bokeh of some lenses in the bokeh-thread. friz's tiger image confirms this, too.

FWIW the 70-210 USM I found only cost about half ($60) of what I paid for the f4 ($135) and is better in almost every respect.

In this case you got a special deal on this lens, in good ol' Europe the USM goes for 150-200 €, which is twice the price of the 70-210 F/4, plus the F/4 has macro and F/4 at the long end, which is nice to have.

Seriously, why would one compare this 100€ lens to lenses at five times the cost or more? The biggest competitors to the 70-210 F/4 are not Canon's other 70-2x0, it all the third party 70-300 lenses, which are similar in price and performance, offer more FL while being one stop slower.

[Mike Deep]

The CA (In my copy at least) was very frustrating, a diffuse purple or green glow around objects that were transitioning to out of focus. It wasn't like typical fringing you could just zap out in post. In focus areas didn't seem to show much CA, oddly enough. The problem disappeared stopped down too, but a lens that's only acceptable at f8 isn't terribly useful.

Re: bokeh, sometimes it was quite good, sometimes it was bad, and there was more variation than any other lens I've used so I suspect it was something about the lens. It definitely did not handle busier situations. Maybe it was my copy. Unfortunately I've long discarded the shots I didn't like.

As for the USM, I've also seen it go for about the same price as the f4 at KEH ($150 range). I came across a bargain but the comparison should still be valid I think.

[PanSeared]

I haven't used this lens consistently enough to form an opinion about it yet. I'll add one of mine though...

378582

[fatdeeman]

I think this lens is great, it's sharp wide open up till about 135mm and above that I just stop down to F8 and it remains sharp right up till 210mm, with this simple rule I have never been dissapointed with the results. Sure it's noisy but it otherwise the focus is reliable and even the bokeh is pretty smooth, it makes a decent portrait lens wide open at 70mm too.

The only problem I can see with this lens is that used prices are going sky high.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/3728814451_a3df95b97e_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2615/3729611918_ca25fc6ec1_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2501/3728810385_072e815777_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2528/3729610250_f2fcb661ec_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3493/3728818065_68203d9ecc_b.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

^those r great!

[fatdeeman]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/3733209674_c8bf845e1f_b.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

^oh wow, did u use an extender? crop or full frame? nice shot!

[fatdeeman]

No extender!

I don't know if you mean did I crop the picture or did I use a crop camera?

The camera is a 350D

I cropped a little, just the sides, the bird landed so close whilst I was photographing something else that I didn't have time to turn the camera on it's side for fear of it flying away again, especially with my two cat's laying on the ground about 50cm away from the bird!

[kandyredcoi]

^thats great, i meant if you used a crop body camera...great shot regardless!!!

trying out the lens' macro capabilities last night, i was a bit bored :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/camera%20gear/IMG_6413.jpg

[friz]

Here is one I got today at the zoo.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f184/frizz1/IMG_6223.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

RC photoshoot last night
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/random/IMG_8405.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/random/IMG_8397.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

over the weekend

[friz]

The eyes have it
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f184/frizz1/IMG_6249_1.jpg

[Photon Phil]

I find the focus reliable as well. Here's a "macro" with the 1D Classic.http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/3811205255_7ce4a7ee0c_o.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

^thats great, i gotta try some macro work outdoors with this lens!

[Photon Phil]

And on the other end of the "spectrum" of this len's use.... a tele shot of minor league baseball tonight. Shot with the 1D Classic at ISO 640, cropped a bit and sharpened with NO noise reduction. It's no dud of a lens, in fact, if this lens is this good... I can only imagine the 70-200 L f4.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2594/3813344515_7c2a00ac3b_o.jpg

[Photon Phil]

A few more from the 70-210F4 & the 1D Classic .... like Sigfreid & Roy.

At a Truck & Tractor Pull..
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3829389156_1d617f1998_o.jpg




By the shed abandoned...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3419/3829294812_d9b7a528a6_o.jpg




At a place of peace...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/3828589301_0bd4e5787f_o.jpg

[fatdeeman]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3525/3818396513_dbd3bd63eb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/3818396513/)

[kandyredcoi]

A few more from the 70-210F4 & the 1D Classic .... like Sigfreid & Roy.

At a Truck & Tractor Pull..
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3829389156_1d617f1998_o.jpg




By the shed abandoned...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3419/3829294812_d9b7a528a6_o.jpg




At a place of peace...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/3828589301_0bd4e5787f_o.jpg

awesome shots!!! my copy has been in the bag, been doing a lot of indoor/short range/low light photog lately

[Photon Phil]

Thanks, and so you should be. Go MkII Go !

[yonders]

I had this lens and hated it so much I gave it away after replacing it with a 70-210 USM and a 70-200 f4L.

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/443344694_vciTb-L.jpg

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/500173642_iH3aC-L.jpg

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/528356489_LFCJg-L.jpg



AWESOME MAN!

I love the snaps.

Great work. Keep it up!

[captainpenguin]

I love my old 70-210 20+ years old and still returning quality results

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2615/3825842034_386fc23362_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3532/3800995707_c544b0c5af_o.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

great samples everyone!

[kandyredcoi]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/my%20puppies/IMG_0015.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/my%20puppies/IMG_0018.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/my%20puppies/IMG_0019.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/my%20puppies/IMG_0026.jpg

[Photon Phil]

Woof! Good posts all.

[kandyredcoi]

^thanx

i did notice some vignetting on some of my pics, those were NOT added in post...weird

[Photon Phil]

If shot at f4 or close, especially on the 5D there will be vignetting. That's my experience. I've learned to like it or edit it.

[kandyredcoi]

^yea on portrait type shots its great, just bothered me when i was takin pics of other things

thanx

[fatdeeman]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3849568152_a45acd7194_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/3849568152/)

[kandyredcoi]

been trying to use this lens' macro capabilities
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/nature%20landscapes/IMG_0132.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/nature%20landscapes/IMG_0134.jpg

[PanSeared]

Here's one at 210.

389190

[Photon Phil]

Ya see...that vingetting turned out swell! Texture, color , light...you got it all here.


been trying to use this lens' macro capabilities
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/nature%20landscapes/IMG_0132.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/nature%20landscapes/IMG_0134.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

^yea hhahaahaha thanx!

[kandyredcoi]

couple of samples over the weekend

[kandyredcoi]

couple more

[Photon Phil]

You're getting a mastery of this lens. Nice posts.

[kandyredcoi]

^thanx, my recent fondness of this lens kept me from purchasing one of those long white expensive ones with almost the same focal distances and apertures :D

[helenachh]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3796569969_b8f1a447f9.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2526/3797349526_3034b2b154.jpg

love the lens.

[friz]

If any of you guys are intersted in a really nice copy of this lens, I'm selling mine here. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=761567

[JayPee]

Great shots everyone. I just bought this lense from friz and soon I will be taking great pics like you guys.

[kandyredcoi]

^congrats!!!

[imgoer]

I just got it yesterday, here is how it performed at 210mm@f/4, 1/400, not very sharp, but enough for me. I only want a good cheap telephoto before I have the $$$ for 70-200mm f/4.

[caiguar]

ok guys, I bought this lens for my little nephew from a fellow member here on potn. I have been using it for a couple of days just to test out everything, overall I'm impressed by this lens and the fact that its 20+ years old. These are just some picture I've taken. I got a deal on a 70-210 3.5-4.5USM so I am maybe going to sell this lens either here or on ebay, but while I wait for the USM I am rally having fun with this lens.

I was thinking that I was going to hate the push/pull zoom but its actually very fun to use. Take into consideration EVERY picture I have taken with this lens is wide open and at 210mm

First I saw this little guy, He was pretty far away and this is an EXTREME crop of the pic, this is what I came up with.
http://www.35mme.com/photos/744139239_98UQB-X3.jpg

This is trying out the closeup "macro" features it has
http://www.35mme.com/photos/744139642_2Cdts-L.jpg

[caiguar]

now here is a test from 70mm, 100mm, 135mm and 210mm again wide open f4

70mm
http://www.35mme.com/photos/744140410_p9hi4-L.jpg

100mm
http://www.35mme.com/photos/744141127_dp9ku-L.jpg

135mm
http://www.35mme.com/photos/744141898_vRR8J-L.jpg

210mm
http://www.35mme.com/photos/744142540_teUu8-L.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

very cool shot^

havent had much time to play with this lens lately

[ggallant1]

I'm currently using the Sigma 70-300 APO DG as my tele lens and am frustrated with its lack of sharpness and slow auto focus. Ive found the 70-210 f/4 at a local shop used for $130.

Is the Canon 70-210 a better lens for auto focus and sharpness than the Sigma? Is it worth it to switch?

[Photon Phil]

Never had a speed problem with it's autofocus in my experience.

[silveradomike]

Jut picked up one of these lens's for 150$

tihs is the fisrt pic straight from the camera paired with an XSI


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2799/4399337471_58653e5d09_b.jpg

[silveradomike]

starting to use this glass more and I like it so far.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2799/4411896410_8d5fc7504d_b.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

keep em coming y'allz! great shots!

[silveradomike]

yet another, Am I the only one with this lens left?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4416198671_98f89b8f9e_b.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

sorry man havent had any opp to use that lens lately...i still got it :D

[silveradomike]

I took some more shots wth this lens on a nice day we had over the weekend.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4484998542_60943b0e6f_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4484985912_43f1f91776_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4484334397_0270a1abca_b.jpg

[Jason L]

Just picked this lens up last week for a good price. I was torn between this and the 70-210 3.5 5.6 USM. I found a copy of the f4 in mint condition, as opposed to the rough condition of the USM lens's available. I am liking this lens so far, and it works great if used within it's limitations.

ISO 400
210mm F4
1/100 SS hand held
Looks sharp enough for my amateur needs!
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/tyabux/IMG_4381.jpg

ISO 800
210mm F5.6
1/640 SS hand held
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/tyabux/IMG_4639.jpg

[silveradomike]

those look good to me.
what body do you have it on?


Just picked this lens up last week for a good price. I was torn between this and the 70-210 3.5 5.6 USM. I found a copy of the f4 in mint condition, as opposed to the rough condition of the USM lens's available. I am liking this lens so far, and it works great if used within it's limitations.

ISO 400
210mm F4
1/100 SS hand held
Looks sharp enough for my amateur needs!
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/tyabux/IMG_4381.jpg

ISO 800
210mm F5.6
1/640 SS hand held
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/tyabux/IMG_4639.jpg

[Jason L]

what body do you have it on?

Rebel XSi

[fatdeeman]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4549553958_0744ae9cca.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4549553958/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4546319479_e43a7408dc.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4546319479/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4556006634_b990796d45.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4556006634/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4548872779_d73910cba5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4548872779/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4555377339_facda34409.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4555377339/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/4555376459_95c075dc7e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4555376459/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4566234465_da60940af7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4566234465/)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1440/4552861110_b7ae86478b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4552861110/)

[Mike Deep]

Nice paraglider set!

[JayJphoto]

I figured I'd double up with two pieces of gear which people ding for "slow AF". The 5D and 70-210mm F/4

:)

ISO 100
210mm
1/125; f/9.0

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4536483674_79f324c887_o.jpg

[fatdeeman]

Nice paraglider set!

Thanks!

[fatdeeman]

I figured I'd double up with two pieces of gear which people ding for "slow AF". The 5D and 70-210mm F/4

:)

ISO 100
210mm
1/125; f/9.0

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4536483674_79f324c887_o.jpg

Seems to have done ok to me!

I wouldn't say the AF is reeeeal slow it just has a long travel so if it misses you have to wait a while for it to come back again, it actually responds quite quickly in servo mode although it doesn't sound like the lens is enjoying it!

I have heard this lens is great on full frame cameras because the larger pixels demand less resolving power from the lens.

[tsergairl]

and three pcs from me :-)

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7051/img3188e.jpg


http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/9168/img2102psd.jpg


http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2071/img2066w.jpg

[tsergairl]

Irish Morning
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4139/img2491o.jpg

Canon EOS 10D

Cheers:-)

[mastertech01]

I have a magnificent Magic Drainpipe 80-200 2.8L but it weighs a ton. I have considered purchasing one of these just for a light carry around that I dont necessarily need a tripod for and the macro is a plus. Great thread and pics, thanks!

Ill be using on a 1D MKIII

[7D_Sniper]

great shots everyone

[tsergairl]

and another :-)
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5905/img4081g.jpg

[silveradomike]

still getting to know this lens.http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4701823156_43cd272822_b.jpg

[tsergairl]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6218/0004bk.jpg

[tsergairl]

Farran wood, Ireland

Title: "Waiting for freedom"
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5713/crw3976.jpg

:-)

[silveradomike]

mine is still sharp
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4076/4736518826_d476c4377c_b.jpg

[tsergairl]

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7348/crw4316.jpg

Cheers

[fatdeeman]

I love this lens but it's got to go.

I just got the 55-250mm efs and it is just as good as the 70-210mm wide open up till about 135mm and there onwards it remains pin sharp where as the 70-210 gets soft unless stopped down to f/8.

The superior sharpness and benefit of IS have swung it for me, the new lens is more compact too and has less CA/fringing.

I have to say it must be the only cheap lens out there that can beat the 70-210mm so if you are on a budget but want an upgrade then I recommend it.

Obviously it's of no use to full framers but if you're using crop it's great value for money.

I shall miss the lens, particularly it's metal mount and distance scale that the newer lens lacks but it loses out on quality at the long end enough to look inferior.

I'm still seeing some fantastic shot's in here, I enjoyed my time with the lens a lot and I'm sure it will carry on doing great service for some time yet!

[cptrios]

I'm thinking of picking one of these up to replace (well, nothing can really replace it) my Drainpipe if I decide that the size, weight, and money would be put to better use someplace else. Can any of you owners tell me if the push/pull zoom on this one carries the standard side-effect of blowing dust into the camera body?

[kandyredcoi]

keep the pics coming along

havent used this in a while so nothing new to share, but great stuff so far !!!

[santrully]

here
http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac26/santrully/70mm-210mm/IMG_1206.jpg

[santrully]

and one more
http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac26/santrully/70mm-210mm/IMG_1201.jpg

[FrostbytePhoto]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/djfrostbyte/3554585106/sizes/l/in/photostream/

I love this lens. I bought it on a whim from ebay and I have fallen in love with it ever since. I am looking to replace it with the 70-200 F2.8 IS but until I get that kind of money together it will remain my 23 year old gem

[tsergairl]

Can any of you owners tell me if the push/pull zoom on this one carries the standard side-effect of blowing dust into the camera body?

yep, still working as big pump :-(


Chris

[mastertech01]

I'm thinking of picking one of these up to replace (well, nothing can really replace it) my Drainpipe if I decide that the size, weight, and money would be put to better use someplace else. Can any of you owners tell me if the push/pull zoom on this one carries the standard side-effect of blowing dust into the camera body?

I cant see getting rid of the drainpipe when this lens is so inexpensive. Just pick it up as a backup for light days. That is what I plan to do anyway. Cant give up the "pipe"

[gabebalazs]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/5135933340_00005ba0d6_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29108710@N04/5135933340/)
Fluffy through a Canon 70-210 f/4 lens (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29108710@N04/5135933340/) by gabebalazs (http://www.flickr.com/people/29108710@N04/), on Flickr

[Wickedkid19]

Wow there are some great shots here. My dad use to shoot with this lens 20 years ago and its been in his closet ever since. Now it belongs to me, can't wait to go test it out this weekend.

[Noel Johnson]

Some from me, both of which are at the longer end of the range...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/teambunny/DPP_008.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/teambunny/DPP_018.jpg

[TheBurningCrown]

I thought I would show this lens some love!

Was taking a photo of a helicopter when this little buddy landed in front of me. So by accident: 1/60th at f/10 :lol:.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5299/5500444605_7bab648a05_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5500444605/)

[TheBurningCrown]

And another one!

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5503887329_94fded2727_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5503887329/)

[TheBurningCrown]

I know I'm hogging the thread right now, so someone else should post some shots :p.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5508014016_a7a91cd6d2_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5508014016/)

[awojtas]

My biggest problem with this lens was the horrific CA, especially in OOF transition areas. Second was the focus speed, that annoying noise it made, and the awful manual focus ring (It's like it shipped with sand inside). Third was the schizophrenic bokeh, which looked like a mirror lens at times. I would probably put sharpness fourth on this list. It wasn't terribly sharp, but that alone wasn't enough to ditch the lens.

FWIW the 70-210 USM I found only cost about half ($60) of what I paid for the f4 ($135) and is better in almost every respect. The only thing I haven't really tried with it is close focus, since I have several lenses better suited to those tasks now. The L's are in a different league, of course.

I've just purchased this lens and have exactly the same experience as Mike on a 550D:
- Ugly fugly CA in the transition areas. Purple at f4, green at f5.6, gone at f8.
- Bokeh can be a mess
- Sharpness is poor at 210mm f4.

However, it is a surprising lens, because other times there is no CA, sharpness is mint, and the bokeh is creamy.
I'm glad I bought it (NZ$100) because it does somehow make really pleasing shots at times. I'm impressed with the colour vibrancy.

I'm going to get mine professionally cleaned, as I think there is some mould on one of the inner elements, and this could cause the bad CA. I'll report back if there's any change.

[TheBurningCrown]

I've just purchased this lens and have exactly the same experience as Mike on a 550D:
- Ugly fugly CA in the transition areas. Purple at f4, green at f5.6, gone at f8.
- Bokeh can be a mess
- Sharpness is poor at 210mm f4.

However, it is a surprising lens, because other times there is no CA, sharpness is mint, and the bokeh is creamy.
I've had basically the same experience as you (on my 350D). But I picked up mine for less than $150, and in that price range it performs superbly. I'm probably going to be upgrading to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkII soon, though I'm second-guessing myself because I rarely use the 70-210 f/4 unless I need the range - it's just not very user-friendly.

That being said, here are some more samples (recently uploaded to Flickr):

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5020/5527732317_e953a8a2a9_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5527732317/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5524788490_be944938a7_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5524788490/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5096/5521386390_3f4a0b91fb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5521386390/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5521386380_beaa577acd_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5521386380/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5518142815_2b8c445884_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5518142815/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5136/5516324934_698e8e54cf_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5516324934/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5175/5513666676_9dffe92118_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmadison/5513666676/)

[tfizzle]

I don't think this lens gets enough love:
bought the really old 70-210 f4. Pretty cool lens for $125.
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/264293_10150238160578805_507713804_7070845_7058212 _n.jpg
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/264462_10150238160643805_507713804_7070846_4546710 _n.jpg
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/264260_10150238161138805_507713804_7070859_4771672 _n.jpg
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/268846_10150238161213805_507713804_7070860_1771643 _n.jpg

Here's a kicker. ISO 3200 on 5d w/the 70-210
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/264487_10150238161288805_507713804_7070863_5654510 _n.jpg

[Noel Johnson]

I've been going through some old pictures, and I quite like this one

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/teambunny/20-20WarwickshireVNothants030.jpg

Taken last summer with the 70-210 F4, not the easiest of pics to share as it's cropped quite heavily.

[danjama]

I recently acquired an excellent example of this lens at a great price. My only other lens is a poorly 28-80mm II. It's barely been used. I do need to get myself a walkabout to replace it, but I have to say the 70-210 f4 has done great even as a walkabout.

I bought it primarily for airshows, but airshow season is over now. Here are a few examples i've taken with this lens, on a 20d.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6058/6284169853_2885c9bf74_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6284169853/)
Camouflage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6284169853/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6093/6281081145_9b02e20dbc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6281081145/)
Strike A Pose (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6281081145/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6238/6273861197_0d2cc7da66_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6273861197/)
Near-side Rear Quarter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6273861197/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6258211345_17eb9648ca_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6258211345/)
IMG_8372 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6258211345/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6238/6242247006_3be2d64ab1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6242247006/)
Feeling It (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6242247006/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6103/6241729815_7889b13385_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6241729815/)
17:20 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6241729815/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6238/6241724675_b4b7894a15_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6241724675/)
Family Portrait (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6241724675/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6099/6235966660_58285ff76c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6235966660/)
Cheeky! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683012@N07/6235966660/) by danjama (http://www.flickr.com/people/63683012@N07/), on Flickr

it's great for a variety of subjects, as you can see. My lens has zero zoom creep even in vertical positions, and zoom is super smooth. The only complaint I have about this lens is the tacky focus ring, but it stays in auto mostly. Others have complained about focus noise, but it hasn't bothered me. I'm certain I haven't even gotten the best from this lens yet - every time I go out with it, the results surprise me in a good way when I get home.

[Noel Johnson]

Hi,
I also started with the 28-80 II - this quickly got replaced with a 17-85 (which is a lot better) and can also be had for pretty reasonable money.
HTH,
Noel

[danjama]

Hi,
I also started with the 28-80 II - this quickly got replaced with a 17-85 (which is a lot better) and can also be had for pretty reasonable money.
HTH,
Noel

Thanks i'll have a look at that :D Sounds like a great range.

I also saw on e-bay an old lens, a 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM lens. Know anything about the optics of that?

Cheers.

[Noel Johnson]

A friend lent me one, it's very good - however I found the lower end to not be wide enough as I have a 1.6 crop sensor. I'm sure there will be a lens sample archive on the site somewhere.

[Nickc84]

:cool:210mm @ f/4

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6111/6312204669_80d9f294ce_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholascaputo/6312204669/)
Simi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholascaputo/6312204669/) by Bokehliciousss (http://www.flickr.com/people/nicholascaputo/), on Flickr

[danjama]

:cool:210mm @ f/4

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6111/6312204669_80d9f294ce_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholascaputo/6312204669/)
Simi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholascaputo/6312204669/) by Bokehliciousss (http://www.flickr.com/people/nicholascaputo/), on Flickr

Very nice! This lens is great.

[Nickc84]

Thanks! It is!

[Grizz]

Great Old lens!

http://grizz1.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/i-X7T3482/2/L/IMG0757-Edit-Edit-L.jpg