> "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... 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? ...
> ... whether the IS changes the point at which the viewfinder
> indicators will start flashing to indicate insufficient exposure.
Hi Ken,
"Exposure warning" occurs when your exposure settings are not compatible
with correct exposure on film regardless of shake. E.g. when the camera
wants to set f/1.0 and your lens only opens up to f/5.6 This only
depends on the available
The viewfinder "Shake" warning only works in the programmed image modes,
and it is not affected by the use of IS lenses (or tripod), and it does
not inhibit shutter release.
I think you know the answer for the lens comparison. The EF 28-135 is a
zoom. It is no match for the 50mm fixed focal lenses. Photo rates the
28-135 at 3.3 and the 50/1.8 at 4.2 and 50/1.4 at 4.4. My own results
agree with this.
I only dabble in macro photography. I have a 500D for use with the
28-135 IS and the 100-400 IS. I have also had some decent results with
a set of Kenko extension tubes (12,20,36mm) using the 50/1.8, 28-135
and 200/2.8.
The 500D is *MUCH* more convenient. It makes full use of the available
light. I can even contemplate handheld shooting because of the magic
of the Image Stabilizer. I wish I had bought it instead of the Kenko
tubes, but I now have both in my kit.
Cheers
Julian Loke
P.S. What did you decide for the wide end?
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
