Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

Ran across this lens, had kind of forgotten about it, anyone have any info on performance? durability?

Oct 06, 2023 at 01:16 PM

stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

Based on my experience in the early 90s, this lens will be outperformed by pretty much any current consumer lens. Unless you have a nostalgic attachment to it, or you're getting it for $5 and want to play, I would not seriously consider it.

Oct 06, 2023 at 01:30 PM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

I bought used EF 28-80/2.8-4L and EF 80-200/2.8L (Magic Drainpipe) lenses in late 2004, when I eased into Canon digital, from the film world. I agree with @stanj's comments. It was a pretty good lens at the time, but I moved up the EF foodchain pretty quickly. Besides, variable-aperture lenses annoy me.

If you're looking for an excellent "shooter" in the used lens market now, I'd go for the EF 24-70/4L IS. If you want the f/2.8, then both of the 24-70/2.8 L versions are way better than the 28-80L.

OTOH, if you want vintage Canon L with excellent optics, check the EF 50-200/3.5-4.5L and EF 100-300/5.6L. I prefer the 100-300L, but both can produce stunning images. You'll need a tripod and MLU (whatever that was) or EFCS, and good technique (check ChatGPT for guidance)

These older L-series lenses have a bit warmer flavour, but nowhere near the difference as between modern Zeiss and older Contax (if that makes any sense), and they're sharp. Or, the Magic Drainpipe (probably costs a tonne, by now).

Speaking of the much-improved high-ISO iof contemporary cameras, I bet it would be a lot easier to use the EF 100-300/5.6L, now. Last time I had one, it was probably with a 5DII (so high ISO was more of a wish, than a capability). Maybe I should get another 100-300/5.6L - third time pays for all.

Oct 06, 2023 at 02:10 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

The EF 28-80/2.8-4L is heavy, big and not that good even compared to recent budget consumer zooms. Well, unless you're into vignette images. On the other hand, I owned the EF 24-70 4L for many years and it was shockingly excellent. My only nitpick is AF didn't work well in .7X macro mode on my DSLRs. Oddly, .7X macro AF was utterly reliable on my EOS R.

Oct 06, 2023 at 02:31 PM

burningheart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

I picked one up a few months ago for the nostalgic look and the zoom range to 80. The nostalgic look reminds me of the 5D with cyans, pinks and reds. Slower to attain focus than the newer 24-70s and definitely not as sharp. I'm glad I bought it but for my use it is destined for nostalgic shooting only.

Oct 06, 2023 at 04:43 PM

khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

I have to agree. I had the 80-200 f2.8, and thought it was the the greatest lens in the world - until I upgraded from it. But after trying out the 28-80, I went with the 2.8 Tokina ATX instead, until canon came out with the EF 28-70 f2.8L.

stanj wrote:
Based on my experience in the early 90s, this lens will be outperformed by pretty much any current consumer lens. Unless you have a nostalgic attachment to it, or you're getting it for $5 and want to play, I would not seriously consider it.

Oct 07, 2023 at 04:21 PM

MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

jcolwell wrote:
OTOH, if you want vintage Canon L with excellent optics, check the EF 50-200/3.5-4.5L and EF 100-300/5.6L. I prefer the 100-300L, but both can produce stunning images.

Either my copy of 100-300L isn't stellar (well I bought it for a price of two 24-85USMs roughly), or it isn't as stellar in today's standards anymore...

I did only compare it at the long end and basically at an infinity, where consumer cousins of these long zooms are typically weakest. While 100-300L for its age made pretty good pictures, the nonL 70-300 IS USM(the first one, but fixed optics) and 70-300 DO IS were able to match it. I did the test in the past on 6D, but recently retried just for fun on R6/2 to get my "100-300L IS".

That's my experience, it is definitely recommended that one reads up on the old L lens tests, because L may not be always that much of an L... e.g. early 16/17-35/2.8Ls weren't reputed for the IQ as far as I remember...

Oct 07, 2023 at 05:27 PM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

MintMar wrote:
Either my copy of 100-300L isn't stellar (well I bought it for a price of two 24-85USMs roughly), or it isn't as stellar in today's standards anymore...

I did only compare it at the long end and basically at an infinity, where consumer cousins of these long zooms are typically weakest. While 100-300L for its age made pretty good pictures, the nonL 70-300 IS USM(the first one, but fixed optics) and 70-300 DO IS were able to match it. I did the test in the past on 6D, but recently retried just for fun on R6/2 to get my "100-300L IS".

That's...Show more →

Great distaste for 100-300L. Bad build and mf, 300mm performance not there. I also found 70-300 IS V1 better at 300mm at least in the center (didn't test corners)

75-300 type zooms usually good til 200mm or so though, might be fine there

Oct 07, 2023 at 05:58 PM

MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

AmbientMike wrote:
Great distaste for 100-300L. Bad build and mf, 300mm performance not there. I also found 70-300 IS V1 better at 300mm at least in the center (didn't test corners)

I bought it mostly just to try it, it was very cheap and at that time my only lens with the fluorite element. At least I do have a pump zoom example lens too.

Yeah it's built and motorized just like EF-35/2.

75-300 type zooms usually good til 200mm or so though, might be fine there

Too bad I don't have an opportunity to try the Mk2 of 70-300 IS and the L version, unless I buy them, heh. I did have, for some short time, old 75-300 Mk2, and it wasn't very good at the long end, definitely worse than the 70-300IS and DO. Also there was a lot of aberration which was not in the same comparation pictures by 70-300IS, so that UD element was worth having there.

From all the lens I tried, the DO seems to be best all around, also considering dimensions in the backpack. It's the heaviest though.

Oct 08, 2023 at 05:58 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

MintMar wrote:
Either my copy of 100-300L isn't stellar (well I bought it for a price of two 24-85USMs roughly), or it isn't as stellar in today's standards anymore...

Few of the old L lenses are stellar by today's standards. The 80-200/2.8L and 200/1.8L stand up pretty well (except IS).

The 50-200L and 100-300L (often confused for the 100-300 not-L) have excellent sharpness in the centre, and not so great away from the centre. If you want an old L to experiment with, these are good choices. They are not easy to use (crappy AF, dim finder, stupid variable-aperture on the 50-200L, ...) but they are what they are: excellent, early L-series lenses. It requires more care and better technique to get great images out ot them, but they're there (the great images).

Oct 08, 2023 at 06:28 AM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

MintMar wrote:
I bought it mostly just to try it, it was very cheap and at that time my only lens with the fluorite element. At least I do have a pump zoom example lens too.

Yeah it's built and motorized just like EF-35/2.

Too bad I don't have an opportunity to try the Mk2 of 70-300 IS and the L version, unless I buy them, heh. I did have, for some short time, old 75-300 Mk2, and it wasn't very good at the long end, definitely worse than the 70-300IS and DO. Also there was a lot of aberration which was...Show more →

The 80's Tamron 60-300 actually beat both the 70-300 IS V1 and 100-300L at the long end, though it was really, really close to the 70-300 IS V1, which I maybe should have kept.

The 75-300 Tamron (672D) actually beat the 180 Tamron for resolution one time at/near mfd, around 5.0-5.6!!! Really good lens til 200mm, about equal to the 100-300L at 300, and cost much less new than the 100-300L in keh bgn. 180 actually had better microcontrast, though, so I'd think it has a better MTF, one reason I'm not a big fan of using MTF on resolution

Actually picked up a 75-300 III, surprised that it is a good lens. The reviews really bad, got it cheap in a bundle, not perfect but just get a lot of good photos using it , and the massive purple fringing cleans up easily in DPP if you shoot raw, in camera corrections seem to fix it, too. I haven't used these lenses nearly as much lately since getting 55-250 long time ago, really like that lens a lot

Oct 08, 2023 at 12:11 PM

MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 28-80/2.8-4 L Performance?

AmbientMike wrote:
[I haven't used these lenses nearly as much lately since getting 55-250 long time ago, really like that lens a lot

Suprising, do you have a cropper for teles? I do. If I want to get as far as possible with AF, I attach 200D to Sigma 100-400 DG Contemporary. But I rather have FF lenses that I mate with the crop occasionally, than have specialized EF-S. There's one exception though - EF-S 18-135 USM, it's pretty versatile walkaround on 200D and I got the power zoom contraption for it. Not that I shoot a lot of vids...

Oct 08, 2023 at 02:39 PM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.