On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:28:57 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
>
Julian -
You're right, of course. Guess I just wanted it confirmed
empirically. Photodo bases these numbers on line resolution though,
right? Do your results show a big difference in other areas?
>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.
Very glad to hear this, as I'll probably now *start* with the 500D,
and play with the tubes later. Maybe.
>
>Cheers
>Julian Loke
>P.S. What did you decide for the wide end?
Well, given the fixed/zoom issue, I was thinking the 17-35 f/2.8L to
get the most I could out of a zoom, given the L glass. I think this
lens would have to be good enough for me! I know I can't see
springing for separate fixed 17, 28 and 35, for example.
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
