Old Canon 35-80mm kit lens = junk?

M

Metrolens

Well-known member
I have an old Canon Rebel XS film camera, along with the kit 35-80mm, f/4-5.6 lens. I'm considering getting a T2i, and am wondering if this lens might actually be useful.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56ii.html

It's an EF mount, so it would work with a T2i, as a 56-128mm. But is this lens pretty much junk? The feel is plasticky, and it's apparently very slow. Does anyone think it will be useful at all? Any thoughts as to what it might be worth?
 
Metrolens said:
I have an old Canon Rebel XS film camera, along with the kit 35-80mm, f/4-5.6 lens. I'm considering getting a T2i, and am wondering if this lens might actually be useful.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56ii.html

It's an EF mount, so it would work with a T2i, as a 56-128mm. But is this lens pretty much junk? The feel is plasticky, and it's apparently very slow. Does anyone think it will be useful at all? Any thoughts as to what it might be worth?
Click to expand...

Can't be that bad for free. Just try it out and you may be surprised. It will give you time to look around for good deals. It's not all that wide though for the cropped sensor, so if cash is an issue you can't go wrong with the 18-55 and the 50 1.8 for starters.
 
Thanks. So I'll give it a shot. Do you think AF will work with it for stills?

I also have two vintage Nikkor primes (mentioned on another thread I started). One's a 28mm f/2.8, the other's a 50mm f/1.4.

So I need to figure out how to round out my lens offerings.
 
Metrolens said:
Thanks. So I'll give it a shot. Do you think AF will work with it for stills?

I also have two vintage Nikkor primes (mentioned on another thread I started). One's a 28mm f/2.8, the other's a 50mm f/1.4.

So I need to figure out how to round out my lens offerings.
Click to expand...

Your 2 Nikons are a great start. Just get a few more Nikon manual primes as fast as you can find and afford. Try to find a 20mm or 24mm 2.8. I also just tested a Nikkor 80-200 2.8 this weekend. Another beautiful manual lens and not that expensive on ebay. (Relatively speaking)
When you are shooting video you will find it much faster to adjust the f-stop using the aperture ring on the lens as apposed to the buttons on the camera.
Also on a critical shoot you really can't trust the auto focus 100%, you have to see it for yourself and the only way to correct it while shooting in manually.
Go manual!
 
Thanks Rockmore. I was thinking about getting a 105mm f2.5, a great portrait lens. Any idea how that fares on video?
 
I have this exact lens (the Canon 35-80). I'm sorry to report that it's not very good.

To put it into perspective, I have the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens, a 50mm f/2.5 prime, and the 17-40mm f/4 L lens. All Canon. I set them all up and did test exposures of the B&H catalog in my office. I tried various apertures and focal lengths, making sure to get the points where they all intersect (for instance, identical focal lengths and aperture to the extent possible).

In a nutshell, the 18-55, the 50, and the 17-40 all looked basically identical in video mode when using identical focal lengths and apertures. The weakest one of the group was the 35-80, which was noticeably softer, even in video mode.

You could still tell a story with it. I think if you just had to have an 80mm lens it would be better to use this than to digitally zoom in a 50mm lens. Having said that, I leave it out of my camera bag so I won't be tempted to use it. I'll just get closer with the 50mm lens until I get an 85mm prime someday.

Having said all of that, if this is the only lens you have, don't be afraid to go out and use it. It's not THAT bad, it's just that you can tell a noticeable difference when you compare it side by side with the others. The Nikon lenses will be better for sure.
 
Good to know, thanks robotsound. I have low expectations for the 35-80, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I also have an old 80-200 kit lens. Similar build quality, and low expectations on that one too.
 
Metrolens said:
I was thinking about getting a 105mm f2.5, a great portrait lens. Any idea how that fares on video?
Click to expand...

From the tests I did on Nikkor lenses, I would start a collection, They're a great looking image and built to last. On Ebay the 105mm 2.5 looks like a reasonable deal.
 
Hey Metrolens, I hope I can catch you before you buy that 105mm.

I bought the same lens on eBay trying to swipe up some cheap primes for the t2i.

It's a beautiful lens with excellent sharpness (my sharpest, to be exact) - but it has VERY limited uses when paired with a cropped sensor. On three shoots so far, I've only used the fixed 168mm perspective for a few extreme closeups and portraits.

I've struggled to find ways of using it because it works so well but it's honestly not a good investment for someone just getting started.

My advice is to get a nice 50 and spend the rest of your budget on wider lenses.
 
miseducation said:
Hey Metrolens, I hope I can catch you before you buy that 105mm.

I bought the same lens on eBay trying to swipe up some cheap primes for the t2i.

It's a beautiful lens with excellent sharpness (my sharpest, to be exact) - but it has VERY limited uses when paired with a cropped sensor. On three shoots so far, I've only used the fixed 168mm perspective for a few extreme closeups and portraits.

I've struggled to find ways of using it because it works so well but it's honestly not a good investment for someone just getting started.

My advice is to get a nice 50 and spend the rest of your budget on wider lenses.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the advice. You are not too late - I have not yet bought anything.

Good news is, I already have two Nikkors - a 28mm f2.8, and a 50mm f1.4. I just spent $55 to have the 50mm stripped and cleaned, and apparently it's in beautiful condition now.

When you say the 105mm is very hard to use, are you shooting both video and stills? (I intend to shoot both.)

Do other people agree with miseducation's logic here, that the 105mm paired with a 60d would ultimately be too long a lens to be useful in a lot of situations?
 
Hey Metro, I have taken some stills with it and I will say that it's more useful there. (It's mostly off my balcony in a high-rise to to other things but it's very sharp there, I can post an example when I get home.)

You and I are similarly equipped actually, my other lenses are also a 28 and a 50. The motivation behind getting the 105 was to cover my bases when I needed longer focal range to go along with the other two. But the reality has been that in day to day use it barely leaves my house.

Remember also that 28mm on a cropped sensor works out to about 45mm, something that I've personally found far more limiting when shooting than leaving my 105mm at home.

I'm currently shopping for something wider and I can't help but say you'd be happier if you did that too.
 
Good to know, thanks for the input.

What are you looking at getting on the wide end?

I've read the Tokina 11-16 is great, but it's hard to find and I think runs upwards of $500. (Not that expensive, actually, relatively speaking). But it's AF and an EF-S lens, so it's a true 11-16mm on these cams.
 
I've been saving money for an 11-16, but now that I've got it saved up, I can't say that I'm totally convinced to go that way.

I'm thinking either Tokina 11-16 or Tamron 17-50 right now.

The Tokina is awesome, but the Tamron would give me some money to blow on a RAID and a little more flexibility.
 
miseducation said:
I've been saving money for an 11-16, but now that I've got it saved up, I can't say that I'm totally convinced to go that way.

I'm thinking either Tokina 11-16 or Tamron 17-50 right now.

The Tokina is awesome, but the Tamron would give me some money to blow on a RAID and a little more flexibility.
Click to expand...

Have you had a chance to put both of those lenses in your hands?

I tried out the Tamron 17-50, Tamron 17-50 VC, and the Tokina 11-16mm as contenders for my super-wide angle slot. The Tokina was simply the best out of the three in terms of build quality, especially focus throw and resistance. I didn't have time to take test photos/videos on all three, but for $100 more, I'd recommend the Tokina from my 20 minutes of exposure to it.
 
jscottprice said:
Have you had a chance to put both of those lenses in your hands?

I tried out the Tamron 17-50, Tamron 17-50 VC, and the Tokina 11-16mm as contenders for my super-wide angle slot. The Tokina was simply the best out of the three in terms of build quality, especially focus throw and resistance. I didn't have time to take test photos/videos on all three, but for $100 more, I'd recommend the Tokina from my 20 minutes of exposure to it.
Click to expand...

Aren't these 2 lenses really for different applications though? An 11-16 seems a very different tool than a 17-50.
 
Metrolens said:
Aren't these 2 lenses really for different applications though? An 11-16 seems a very different tool than a 17-50.
Click to expand...

I was only responding directly to Miseducation's post:

[quote="miseducation]I've been saving money for an 11-16, but now that I've got it saved up, I can't say that I'm totally convinced to go that way.

I'm thinking either Tokina 11-16 or Tamron 17-50 right now.[/quote]

And I would only consider these lenses in the competition of the "widest" profile of your lens collection. Yes, the Tokina screams specificity, while the Tamron is basically an ideal, multi-purpose, never-change-the-lens lens on a cropped sensor.

Ceteris paribus, the Tokina has a better build and better feel from my experience. The Tamron's focus rings had a lot of slop and less throw. The Tokina felt like a tank.

That is all.
 
Basic Prime set:

20mm
24mm
28mm
35mm
50mm
85mm
105mm

Fun things to add:

14-18mm
135-300mm

You'll spend a lot more time on the basic wides than anything else. The longer lenses are good for closeups, or when you want to stand off the edge of the set, or you're filming outside and need some room. If you're filming someone across the street, you may find those 135-300mm lenses pretty darn handy. Or if you want to film someone on a park bench, etc.

As a new shooter, here is what I recommend to most people, and I did it myself.

Buy 2-3 zoom lenses. They don't have to be anything fancy. Enough to cover your entire focal range. Then start your prime collection with the focal lengths you find yourself at most often.

The three zooms I have are:

1. Canon EF-S 18-55 (kit zoom for the T2i)
2. Nikon 28-80mm (kit zoom for the F65)
3. Sigma 70-300 Macro

The sum total price for these zooms was less than $150. So for $150 I covered 55-300mm. Maybe not the best glass, and maybe not at the best aperture. But if we absolutely, positively HAVE to get the shot, I can cover it.

I am building up a set of Nippon Kogaku glass (aka Nikon) in the aforementioned lengths. I will then build up a Pentax Screwmount set of glass in the common lengths. Once those sets are complete.. probably by next summer, I can look into some specialty glass or some very fast glass. Right now, I am trying to stay with glass at F2.8 or faster. And mostly at F2.0 or faster. This gives amazing flexibility in what you can shoot.

Also, I am choosing to stay with glass all of a similar vintage. This allows for a fairly consistent lens to lens look that is vital if your are lensing a movie.

I suspect for most productions, my 28-80 will get quite a workout until my first set of primes is done. I'm not planning on doing many productions where I need to be super wide or super long, and that lens covers a wonderful range.
 
PerroneFord said:
Basic Prime set:

20mm
24mm
28mm
35mm
50mm
85mm
105mm

Fun things to add:

14-18mm
135-300mm
Click to expand...

Cool.

So in my situation, for a barebones basic 3 lens prime set, should I maybe just add a 20mm? The logic being, the 24 and 35 are sort of "intermediate" lenses given that I already have the 28mm and 50mm, and the 85mm and 105mm may be too long for common use?

Also, I may be able to get a Canon EF 28-135mm (I think the old 7d kit lens) for $100, which would cover me pretty nicely for a zoom. I know this lens isn't as sharp as the 18-135 EF-S, and also it's going to be a 45mm-216mm because it's EF, but for $100 it's a great buy right? (It lists new for $400).

Would this be a good one zoom + barebones prime setup?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top