Vesa Perala wrote:
> >I'm looking to fill the gap between the 85/1.8 and the 200/2.8--I keep
> >vacillating between the 135/2L and the 70-200/4L.
>
> How about having 100/2 (instead of 85/1.8) and 200/2.8?
> Since you already have the 28-70/2.8 wouldn't 100 fit better with it?
Probably--but since I already have the 85, I can't justify the 100. If I were to
do it over again I would probably choose the 100 vs. the 85, but at the time I
already had the FD 100/2.8 and I didn't want to duplicate lenses across systems.
I have however since sold the 100/2.8, so my reasoning wasn't the best as it
turns out. And, someday I may be able to afford to pick up a 100/2.8 macro. . .
.
> If you also had the 70-200/4L then you would have lots of options:
> - [snip]
> - 28-70, 200/2.8 if you need faster 200mm lens but feel lazy to carry
> everything.
This is what I usually end up with, or else the 85 & 200, or sometimes the
20-35/3.5~4.5 & 200; it all depends on where I'm going. For a brief trip this
weekend, I have packed the 20-35, 28-70, and 200 (and 500EX), which all fits
nicely in a Lowepro Street & Field Reporter 400 along with one body.
I like the size and sharpness of the 135/2L, and also the fact that it wouldn't
"compete" with my 200/2.8L in the way that the 70-200/4 would; but OTOH the
notion of having a single "walk-around" lens with more reach (and less weight)
than the 28-70 is appealing, especially at a lower price. Fortunately (?) the
state of my budget is such that I won't be needing to make a final choice
anytime soon. :-)
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
