Canon EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 L

No, that wasn't a typo. I acquired this lens and a couple of other things in a Craigslist deal this afternoon.

The lens was manufactured the same year I was born, 1988, making it one of the earliest EF lenses made. It looks like it was made yesterday though. The thing is in absolutely mint condition and came with a hood and soft case.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/75280313@N02/8​368912058/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/75280313@N02/8​368913226/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/75280313@N02/8​367904057/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/75280313@N02/8​368978152/

• It's sharp. Definitely feels on par with the basic 70-200mm L.
  
• Flare seems well-controlled shooting into the sun.
  
• Construction is decent, on par with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. You miss the metal construction of the modern 70-200mm, though. At least it's light.
  
• It's a lot smaller than any of the 70-200mm lenses (58mm filter size), and the body is black. This should make it a lot easier to get into places where a white lens might be denied.
  
• It does seem to hunt for focus in anything other than perfect lighting and contrast.
  
• BZZZZZ... BZZZZZ...
  

I don't know if I've ever seen that one. Pretty cool and rare I think....Looks a lot like Canon's old 100-300 F5.6L and the old original 70-210 F4. How is the autofocus speed and noise? If its anything like those other lenses I bet it's a little loud. Either way, nice one!

Nice find. I have only ever seen that by going through the Canon Museum website. How much did you pay for it?

Here is another good reference on older lenses: http://www.mir.com.my …EF50200mmf3545L​/index.htm

how much did it set you back?

50-200 with "L like" IQ . . . wow - that'd be awesome for what I shoot!

I've found that for a zoom to be worthwhile for me, it really needs to cover a range of 4x, which this does. Unfortunately, the 70-200 series is not quite even a 3x, and never seemed to give me that range I needed - hence, I sold mine.

This would be awesome to have; I wonder if there are any more around?

First time using video. I guess I should learn how to manually control audio input since the built-in mic doesn't do it justice. It's the loudest lens I've ever used, though I haven't used many non-USM ones.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Pydic66UfIo

DreDaze wrote in post #15472699
how much did it set you back?

Roughly $250.

So the next test would be to compare it side to side versus the 55-250, if you have a cropper, and that. It would be interesting to see side by side comparisons seeing how they are pretty much the same price.

I remember wanting to hunt down one of the 100-300 L lenses from the 90s, I think it was f/5.6.

FEChariot wrote in post #15475215
So the next test would be to compare it side to side versus the 55-250, if you have a cropper, and that. It would be interesting to see side by side comparisons seeing how they are pretty much the same price.

Sadly I have neither. Anyone around the Boston area that would like to help make the comparison?

That's a pretty cool deal!

I'm just curious about one of your statements...where are white lenses not allowed?

rivas8409 wrote in post #15476482
That's a pretty cool deal!

I'm just curious about one of your statements...where are white lenses not allowed?

NBA games are pretty notorious for open statements like "no professional looking" equipment" and to most bag checker non photographers, white looks professional.

Hi there,

finally I got this lens from Ebay in almost mint condition - and first pictures look promising ...

Does anybody know what lenshood would be suitable?

FEChariot wrote in post #15476918
NBA games are pretty notorious for open statements like "no professional looking" equipment" and to most bag checker non photographers, white looks professional.

Just wrap the lens with a black lens coat. Works for my buddy when he takes his 300 2.8 to a baseball game lol