EF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 II USM

"Lens Made in Japan" printed around front element.

It has a plastic mount and was provided as a kit lens to the EOS Elan film camera series back in 1990-ish.

What is the reputation regarding this lens?

Not good. The only good 28-80mm is the original EF 28-80mm 3.5-4.5 USM.

It has Ring Type USM and a metal mount. It's optics are much better than the other consumer 28-80mm's.
(comparable to the 28-105 and 28-135 for Image Quality)

It is easy to spot by the fact it has separate focus rings and zoom rings on the body of the lens. I believe the other versions have only a zoom ring and use the front element to focus.

More info here: http://images.google.c​a …D2%26hl%3Den%26​safe%3Doff

Original 28-80mm

Thanks Mike!
Excellent info in the link, too.

I don't think it is terrible, just mediocre. It is basically worth what it goes for on ebay - $40-60. If you need a lens in that focal range that will be used in good light, it should be fine stopped down 2 stops. For the money, there isn't much better.

I had the 28-80mm V USM. It was sharper than my 28-135mm, I'll give it that.

Awful range on APS-C though.

msowsun wrote in post #7632649
The only good 28-80mm is the original EF 28-80mm 3.5-4.5 USM.

(You knew this was coming )
The original 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM was the second best and much better than the six other EF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 lenses that came after.

Remember the EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4 L USM? A bit heavy but optically excellent, shown below beside the worst of the eight 28-80mm lenses that Canon made: The EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II (non usm).

Naturalist wrote in post #7632500
"Lens Made in Japan" printed around front element.
It has a plastic mount and was provided as a kit lens to the EOS Elan film camera series back in 1990-ish.
What is the reputation regarding this lens?

At least your II version has the faster and quiet USM motor. With the II in the picture below, I find the images are a bit low contrast. There is noticible barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion at the long end and there is some chromatic aberation. All of those things can be fixed in post however. It focuses pretty close. Your copy is probably better than mine as this one has a lot of miles on it and is very well worn.

If I had to carry a 28-80 lens around all day, I may well choose the inexpensive lens on the right. The one on the left weighs more than 2 lbs (945g) and is obnoxiously large for a normal zoom. The one on the right weighs 200g as does your II USM version. The original 28-80/3.5-5.6 USM that Mike showed above weighs about 330g but it is a much better lens overall than the mark II.

Use it for a while and see if you like it.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

macroimage wrote in post #7634166
(You knew this was coming )

As I wrote my post, I wondered if someone might remember the old 28-80L.