Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon EF 35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM ... need reviews, any good? |
I wonder how many people were complaining that 35mm was not wide enough back then? There are certainly enough people doing that today when ever someone talks about using a 24-XX zoom on a 1.6 crop digital camera.
Back then a 35-XXmm zoom was the kit lens on many lower end film SLRs.
Actually, the EF 35-135 4.0-5.6 USM and its direct predecessor, EF 35-135 3.5-4.5, were pretty pricey for back in the day. They were consider prosumer optics, not because of the wide end, but because of the better materials and extended zoom range. The EOS 10S and EF 35-135 4.0-5.6 USM kit debuted over a $1000, a pretty penny in 1990. During the late 80s and early 90s there was only two wider "normal" zooms, the EF 28-70 3.5-4.5 and the EF 28-80 2.8-4.0L.
The el cheapo zooms were the later EF 35-80 series. The earlier EF 35-70 3.5-4.5 was a lot nicer. Whatever, in 1990 I thought 35mm was really wide! I bought an "ultra wide" EF 24 2.8 in 1990 and had difficultly keeping my feet out of the picture. I thought, what a useless focal length, it's just too damn wide!