>From: "Lee Hiers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I did compare the cost of going with the 85/1.8, 135L and 200L vs.
>the 70-200 2.8L...the L zoom is actually a little cheaper...and I
>haven't even thrown in the 100 USM macro yet! It looks like the 70-
>200 4.0L may really be a "bargain"...as has been discussed here.
Do you *need* both the 85 and 135, how about:
- 100 USM macro and the 200/2.8 or
- 70-200/4L and 100 USM macro and 100/2 or
- 70-200/4L and 100 USM macro?
These with e.g. a 28-70/2.8 are one nice combo I bet.
Don't let the "135/2L is the best lens in that range..." drooling
mislead you... ;-)
>I haven't looked at the 28-70L combined with the 70-200 2.8L compared
>to separate primes, but that full range may be covered a little less
>expensively with the primes, depending on how much gap you can
>tolerate between lenses focal-length-wise. I also like the idea of
>multiple lenses in case of lens failure...not to mention that primes
>can be purchased on an "instalment" basis! Admittedly, the primes
>are more difficult to carry if you've got a full collection.
I always want to own some primes even if I have zooms in the same
range. I now have 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8mkI, 100/2 and 200/2.8
primes with 28-135 IS and 100-400 IS and soon 28-70/2.8(this one
will be Sigma though...).
I have decided that I don't need the f2.8 telezoom (yet?) but even
if I had one I still would like to own the primes. They are so
flexible even if you may disagree here; they are cheap, light,
excellent sharpness and contrast, less distortion, have large
aperture and focus closer (at least in the wide end of the zoom).
True, the short primes which I own don't have USM (FTM). And they
are fixed focal lengths...
I bought all the primes second hand for the price which is less
than one new f2.8 zoom price (but slightly more than second hand
price I quess).
I can even fill my bag with all 24, 35, 50, 100 and 200 primes
and the 28-135 and still the weight is about the same as that of
the 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 zooms together.
Usually it is not necessary though to have everything with me so
I can select what I want and need, e.g.:
- 28-135 and 200 (=total weight of 70-200/2.8 alone) or
- 28-135, 24, 35, 100 (=total weight of 70-200/2.8) or
- 24, 35, 50, 100 for really low light (15% less than 70-200 weight)
- 35/2 only (210g vs 880g of 28-70/2.8)
The weights are "selling weights" excluding (?) caps, filters
and tripod ring (in 70-200/2.8 only).
However, I don't say I wouldn't like to have all the three 2.8
zooms but still I would like to have the primes (and the 28-135 IS).
To be completely honest I sometimes "need" a fast normal zoom so
I bought the Sigma EX which was only 20% of the Canon zoom price
and it is smaller and lighter as well. I think I need you to wish
me luck with it though...
Sorry but this became longer than my intention was.
To make it even longer:
- I think you should get some cheap primes even if you had fast zooms.
- The 28-135 IS with 70-200/4L and some primes (35/2 and 100/2 (or 85)
is a great lightweight combo with lots of flexibility.
Vesa
PS. As you see low weight is important me (sometimes, at least as
an option).
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
