Rafal Walas wrote:
>
> From: "Daniel ROCHA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 19 grudnia 2000 19:27
> Subject: Re: EOS Plans for IS on 70-200 f/2.8
>
> > From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Hello Skip !
> >
> > > to me, it wouldn't make much
> > > sense to buy this lens, since it has such a great degree of overlap with
> > > the 28-135 IS, which I already own. What I'd like to see is an upgrade
> >
> > I can't agree ! :)
> > The 70-200 2,8 is a L lens, which is very used by pros & serious amaters.
> > It's optically (far) better than the 28-135IS they are not in the same
> > range. I think that for the 28-135 IS and a futur 70-200 2,8L IS, there is
> > no overlapping at all.
> > And overlapping is not a really problem. For example the 17-35L overlap
> with
> > the 28-70L buy nobody who wants to have one of such a lens, will not buy
> it,
> > because they have already the other one...
> > A _good_ 75-300 lens is a piece of equipment very hard to produce (I
> think).
> > And perhaps the only way to make it, is to use great advanced
> technologies,
> > and certainly to use the same material that in an L lens. Therefore the
> > 75-300 is the entry level and the 100-400 L The pro level.
>
> Hi Skip,
>
> Daniel IS 100% right.
> When I bought 70-200 and 100-400 I've forgotten about 75-300.
> Those L and consumer lenses are completely different.
> Not only sharpness is important but also colour saturation, contrast etc.
> Buy or rent an L lens and you'll SEE the difference easily !!!
>
> All the best,
>
> Rafal A. Walas
> ==================
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> tel: +48 601 083 450
>
I've rented the 100-400IS, and really liked it, but it required a
monopod for use for any extended length of time. I also rented the
100-300 USM, the ring USM version, and really liked it too. Not as good
as the 100-400, but good contrast and saturation, remembering that it is
a $300 lens, not a $1600 lens. The 75-300 IS was just awful, not as
sharp as the 100-300, nor as good saturation. But for me, saturation is
not as important as contrast, since I primarily shoot B&W (and mostly
nudes, at that!.) It takes a a lot to justify a lens in the over $1000
class for me. I can afford it, but it beats the hell out of my budget
for several months. B&H prices the 70-200 f2.8L at 1299.95, the 100-400
f4-5.6L IS at 1559.95 and the 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM at 299.95. (All USA
prices.) The 75-300 f4.0-5.6 USM IS is $489.95, and it isn't as good a
lens as the 100-300. It's micro motor vs. ring USM, and the optics,
subjectively speaking, aren't as good. Nor are the optics as good as
the 28-135 IS.
I see the difference between an "L" lens and a "consumer" lens, but it
is difficult to justify a $1200 difference in price. That would buy me
an EOS 1v!!
So I stand by what I said, for my purposes, an upgraded "consumer" IS
100-300 f4-5.6 would be more useful than adding IS to an already
excellent 70-200 f2.8 "L" lens.
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
