----- Original Message -----
From: Robert S. Greenstein, Esq. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Re: PJ lenses - Attn Robert Greenstein
> Hello George:
>
> The 200 1.8L is heavy and expensive. It is also the sharpest and best
> contrast lens I have ever used. I bought mine used for a reasonable
price,
> specifically so I could photograph performances of my entertainment
Clients.
>
> I use it mostly in two situations. In low light such as concerts,
> theatrical, or other such settings (without flash, of course), and, for
> portraits with minimal depth of field. I also understand from several
> astrophotographers that it is simply amazing for astrophotography, but I
> have yet to use it for that purpose. I hope to do so in the coming
months.
> The lens is also very accurate as I have never found any undesirable
> chromatic aberrations in images shot under stage, theatrical or outdoor
> lighting conditions.
>
> I have also used it to shoot a friend's sunset wedding -- without
flash,
> as well as kids school auditorium performances again without flash. I do
> not find that I use it all that often, but every time I do, it's
sharpness,
> contrast and extra speed is outstanding. A lightweight monopod (I use a
> Bogen) comes in really handy as well.
>
> At one time, before the EOS list changed servers there were lens tests
> in the archives authored, I believe by Olle, which also numerically
> demonstrated the outstanding performance of this lens. The focus speed of
> the 1.8L simply blazes and seems quite faster than the 70-200L and is much
> faster than the 35-350L. And, as I recollect, if I'm not mistaken, the
1.8L
> shares the focus range limiter, manual focus speed settings, and focus
> preset features of the 300L and 600L lenses. Two other points, the
> viewfinder image with the 1.8 is amazingly bright. On the minus side, I
> find the tripod mounting plate often gets in my way when handholding
shots.
> I would have preferred a removable ring such as found on the 70-200 and
> 35-350.
>
> I use the 70-200 2.8L more often than the 1.8L mostly because the 1.8L
> is much larger and heavier. Both are of outstanding construction and very
> durable. The 35-350 is a great all around lens and the one I almost
always
> take when I'm out skiing, hiking, etc.
>
> Basically, if it's bright daylight outdoors I usually bring the 35-350
> and 20-35. If less light I'll bring the 70-200 instead of the 35-350. If
> it's early morning, late afternoon, evening or night I'll bring the 70-200
> or the 200 1.8. Of course, a lot depends on what I'm shooting and I've
> always got a flash along just in case.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert S. Greenstein, Esq.
>
> ***********************************************************
>
Robert,
The 200 1.8 is a lens that I hope I can purchase in the future. For the
present, I am content on purchasing the 135 2L for indoor and portrait use.
My question for you about the 200 1.8 is with the use of the 1.4x or 2x
teleconverters. Have you used the lens with either? If so, what do you
think of the combination vs. either the 300 2.8L or the 400 2.8L? I
believe you will be at 3.5 with the 2x. It seems to be a great way to
achieve these focal lengths and own one of the best 200mm lenses ever made.
Gary
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
