On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 09:39:30 -0600 , you wrote:
>Some more comments if you'd like...
<snip>
The more the better! I 'm really getting alot out of everyone's
input, thanks a lot. I still feel pretty sure that I want the 17-35
and 100-400 IS to be the bookends of my lens kit since I just can't
afford a real "bird lens", and I like the versatility. I have the
most questions about the middle. Perhaps I *should* consider the
28-135 IS as the sole mid-range "walking around" lens, but my
traditional side and the side that wants to do close-ups is attached
to the fixed focus 50 1.4/100mm macro combo in there. I'm not sure
how seriously to take the "macro" capability of the 28-135. But then
again, I don't need a microscope! Has anyone tested out the close-up
capacity of the 28-135? Say with extension tubes and/or something
like a 500D on it? And is it a meaningful question to ask how the
28-135 at the 50mm length compares to the 50mm ff lenses?
Another question - sorry if it's a dumb one - has to do with IS and
metering. I understand that the IS "gives you" another 2 or 3 shutter
speeds to play with, but is that outside of where the camera will
achieve exposure confirmation, and does the meter know about the IS?
Or does it merely "expand" your compensation range? Does that make
sense? I guess I'm asking whether the IS changes the point at which
the viewfinder indicators will start flashing to indicate insufficient
exposure.
Thanks for the input.
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
