"Sleeper" budget telephoto zoom for Canon-EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

[996GT2]

I've been looking for a budget telephoto zoom for a while, and was pretty decided on the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro (1:2) for around $150.

Then, I came across a lens that seemed too good to be true for the measly $132 I paid on eBay for one on mint condition: the Canon 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

Not only does this thing have a relatively fast aperture and internal (rear) focusing, but it also has a wickedly fast ring-type USM focusing drive that allows full time manual focusing. Indeed, some people are saying that this lens focuses even faster than the 70-200mm f/4 L. Seems like a better buy than the third party lenses at this price range.

Will post some sample shots when I get it next week.

Full review and comparison test against the EF 70-200mm f/4 L


EDIT:

Just got the lens today. First impressions: It feels solid in your hand, and is quite hefty at nearly 600g (1.3 lbs). When fully extended, the lens is very nearly the same size as the 70-200mm f/4L, both in length and diameter. However, the L weighs about 100 g (.2 lb) more.The construction is pretty good for a non-L lens; definitely way above the build quality of the 18-55mm kit lenses. The copy I got was in great cosmetic condition, although the zoom action was a bit loose (hey, can't complain much for $132).

Pic of lens (taken from another site)
Size comparison with 70-210mm f/4 L (taken from POTN)

Lens ergonomics are very good, although I felt the focusing ring was a bit narrow. It's also a bit strange adjusting to the positioning of the zoom and focusing rings, since they are flipped (zoom ring in back) on my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. However, focusing is extremely quick and very quiet (only a slight hum). The AF is noticeably faster than that of my Sigma 18-50; it is quite possible to track moving objects in AI Servo mode. Also, the full time manual focusing override provided by ring USM is quite convenient.

Below are 2 100% crops taken at 210mm, f/4.5 (wide open), near the minimum focusing distance of the lens (1.2m). This is generally regarded to be the toughest test for a lens. It is pretty sharp, even wide open at maximum telephoto.

No post processing was done on these shots.

100% Center Crop
100% Extreme Corner Crop

Some other sample shots (100% saved at quality setting 9 in Photoshop):

Focusing was around the number 12 in the first 2, and around the "TOTAL" decal in the last sample. The depth of field was relatively shallow since I was close to the minimum focusing distance of the lens, so I had to use small apertures (and even then, there wasn't quite enough DoF to cover the entire car).

Sample 1: 1/250 sec, f/13
Sample 2: 1/250, f/11
Sample 3: 1/250, f/11

 

[Kaido]

Wow, that seems crazy cheap! Definitely looking forward to the pictures!

 

[foghorn67]

Good lenses. The 70-210 I had was great during my EOS film days. I couldn't compare sharpness since I rarely digitized the negatives, but the AF was pretty snappy.
If you could live with 28mm being not so wide on a crop, the 28-105 3.5-4.5 is like the walkaround zoom along the same lines as the 70-210. Cheap, pretty sharp, not bad in AF speed.
(you wouldn't need it since you have a fast Sigma, but just FYI)

 

[996GT2]

Updated with sample shots. I think that the level of performance and features found on this lens stunning for a lens that cost me $132.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

The car shots look very nice.

The 2 text shots look pretty soft, and some odd CA to go along with it, unless it's just the jpg compression futzing things up.

Nice to find a bargain in this economy, eh?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
The car shots look very nice.

The 2 text shots look pretty soft, and some odd CA to go along with it, unless it's just the jpg compression futzing things up.

Nice to find a bargain in this economy, eh?

The 2 text shots were taken at wide open aperture, full telephoto, and near to the minimum focusing distance. So, in essence, it's the worst-case scenario of how this lens would perform. If you stop it down to f/5.6, it's very sharp.

And yep, sure is nice to find something better than the generic, poorly QC'd, slow focusing Sigma and Tamron 70-300mms in this price range This thing is beastly in the AF speed department. Ring USM is sweeeet

 

[EvilYoda]

Cool, thanks OP...I've been wanting the 70-200mm f/4 for a long time and this might be a nice stop-gap for me. I even rented the L for a week...nice lens

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: EvilYoda
Cool, thanks OP...I've been wanting the 70-200mm f/4 for a long time and this might be a nice stop-gap for me. I even rented the L for a week...nice lens

For the price that these 70-210s go for, you can't go wrong. $150-200 is the average range, and that's less than 1/2 of the USED price of a 70-200L. It offers comparable AF performance, and the optical performance is definitely stunning considering the price tag (even though it's short of L level).

Of course, once you get "L" fever, you simply won't settle for anything else

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
The car shots look very nice.

The 2 text shots look pretty soft, and some odd CA to go along with it, unless it's just the jpg compression futzing things up.

Nice to find a bargain in this economy, eh?

The 2 text shots were taken at wide open aperture, full telephoto, and near to the minimum focusing distance. So, in essence, it's the worst-case scenario of how this lens would perform. If you stop it down to f/5.6, it's very sharp.

And yep, sure is nice to find something better than the generic, poorly QC'd, slow focusing Sigma and Tamron 70-300mms in this price range This thing is beastly in the AF speed department. Ring USM is sweeeet

Well, just to compare to the Tammy 70-300 I picked up last year for $133. Since you mentioned it, thought I'd give a little comparo...

Compared with the test photo you posted, the Tammy is much sharper. I shot @ 210mm, wide open (f/4.5), minimum focusing distance (about a yard away). Either the Tammy is just a sharper lens, or the poor lighting you were using precluded the Canon's AF from achieving precise focus. Not trying to bash you - I know you're doing this informally - but you really need to use good light when trying to ascertain how sharp a lens is.

I have no doubts the Canon lens focuses much faster than the Tammy. My Pentax K100D is already a step behind most DSLR's in focus speed, and the Tammy exacerbates that shortcoming.

Also, the Tammy (at least my sample) has bad PF & CA. Even in medium contrast situations (say, black on gray) the Tammy exhibits PF. PF can be mitigated in PP, but it's not the same.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
The car shots look very nice.

The 2 text shots look pretty soft, and some odd CA to go along with it, unless it's just the jpg compression futzing things up.

Nice to find a bargain in this economy, eh?

The 2 text shots were taken at wide open aperture, full telephoto, and near to the minimum focusing distance. So, in essence, it's the worst-case scenario of how this lens would perform. If you stop it down to f/5.6, it's very sharp.

And yep, sure is nice to find something better than the generic, poorly QC'd, slow focusing Sigma and Tamron 70-300mms in this price range This thing is beastly in the AF speed department. Ring USM is sweeeet

Well, just to compare to the Tammy 70-300 I picked up last year for $133. Since you mentioned it, thought I'd give a little comparo...

Compared with the test photo you posted, the Tammy is much sharper. I shot @ 210mm, wide open (f/4.5), minimum focusing distance (about a yard away). Either the Tammy is just a sharper lens, or the poor lighting you were using precluded the Canon's AF from achieving precise focus. Not trying to bash you - I know you're doing this informally - but you really need to use good light when trying to ascertain how sharp a lens is.

I have no doubts the Canon lens focuses much faster than the Tammy. My Pentax K100D is already a step behind most DSLR's in focus speed, and the Tammy exacerbates that shortcoming.

Also, the Tammy (at least my sample) has bad PF & CA. Even in medium contrast situations (say, black on gray) the Tammy exhibits PF. PF can be mitigated in PP, but it's not the same.

Hm, yeah there's not a lot of room to test a lens in my dorm, and the lighting is quite poor. I'm waiting until it gets a bit warmer to go out and take some shots with the 70-210. I haven't seen a significant PF problem on the Canon yet, but I've read on POTN that there is a major PF problem if you were to attach a 2x teleconverter to this lens for a 140-420mm f/7.1-f/9 (which amazingly still autofocuses on a 40D if used with a non-reporting TC, albeit slowly).

As far as the focusing speed is concerned on your K100, I kinda know how you feel. I had a D70 and D200 before, and while everyone uses the argument that they have a built in AF motor as a major point for upgrading from a D40 or D60, the AF speed really isn't that spectacular. With my D200, even my relatively high-end Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 EX was out-focused by the kit 18-55mm VR lens...and the VR did the focusing much more quietly. So now, I don't really consider a built in AF drive motor to be a huge plus unless someone just has a pile of older lenses laying around...it's definitely slower and louder than an in-lens focusing solution like USM or SWM.

 

[yllus]

Based on this thread and the lens sample photo archive thread for the Canon EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM at POTN, I grabbed one off of Ebay today for $200ish CDN.

I didn't want to pay as much as I did, but I'm currently in need of a lens in that focal range and don't want to pay for a 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. Will contribute some photos once it arrives!