Old lense opinions

I have a chance to pick these up at a very cheap price...
all Canons 28-70 f/3.5-4.5... 50 f/1.8 mk, and a 70-210 are any of these any good?

Thanks

How cheap is cheap? From what I can tell, Canon introduced 2 70-210 lenses. One, the f/4 in 1987 and the other, f/3.5-4.5 USM in 1990; 2 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 in 1987 and then a version II just one year later. I wonder why? Is the 50mm the mk I with the metal mount? Some say this lens, even though it is 1987 vintage design, is superior to the current Thrifty Fifty.

So, I can't tell you much about these lenses, but if they are in working condition, with no fungus or obvious defects that cause image degradation and I could get them for low double digit dollars, I'd be tempted.

I have a 50 f/1.8 MK1, but never used the MK2 version so I can't make a direct comparison. The MK1 I have is pretty well built and very sharp. Focus is fast(ish), but loud.

I used to have the 70-210 f/3.5-4.5. That was a nice lens with the ring USM and FTM focus. It does extend a lot when zooming though. Build quality was very good. Same look and feel as the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 MK1 and 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 MK1. Optics were decent. Much better than the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 I had for a mercifully short time!

No idea about the 28-70 you mentioned.

Poke around ebay to get an idea of what they are currently selling for.

Make sure they are EF lenses, and not FD. The FD mount will not, for all intents and purposes, fit on an EOS body.

If they are EF, they should function just fine.

Have Fun,

That 28-70 is not worth anything on a digital body. It was a kit lens for ancient EOS cameras and (at least my copy) sucked worse then the worst lens I ever used, which is that lens.

The 70-210 is also a bad lens that I believe was replaced by the 75-300 MKIII, which also isnt that great.

The 50mm is worth a go whatever it is. However if your intent is only 4X6 prints and no serious cropping, all will work fine.

cjm wrote in post #2520101
The 70-210 is also a bad lens that I believe was replaced by the 75-300 MKIII, which also isnt that great.

Not true. The 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 is nothing like any of the 75-300 offerings. The 75-300 is more on a "kit lens" quality level, where the 70-210 is a step above. I don't think the 75-300 replaced this lens, as they were available at the same time, or at least one of the versions of the 75-300 was if not the MK3.

Here's a link to a decent review of this lens. I kind of wish I never sold mine. It was light, easy to carry around, and a decent performer.

http://emedia.leeward.​hawaii.edu/frary/toolb​ox3.htm

The 70-210 is a good budget lens (I have one and cant be bothered upgrading as I rarely shoot over 50mm or so), and the nifty fifty is pretty good be it mk I or II (the mk I with the nicer mount and guides is a bit of a bonus, but I think they are way overpriced now used).

If you can get them used for a good price as starter lenses they are pretty good start points and will likely resell well in the the future if you end up upgrading. a bit of searching on google will find you various reviews on the 70-210 as well as the 50. Im not very familiar with the last lens so i'll leave that to others who are better informed.