Ken Durling wrote:
> Interesting comments, again, thanks! I had thought about the
> 28-70/2.8, as it looks like a nice lens in reviews. Your filter size
> comment is very interesting, I hadn't thought about that. I'm still
> hanging onto this idea of having *some* fixed focus lenses, though!
> Like a 50 or a 35. I wonder if I could *really* tell a big
> difference, given that these zooms are all "L" series lenses.
There is no doubt that the 28-70/2.8L is a nice lens, and I have no immediate plans to
let mine go; however, it is relatively large and relatively heavy. Keeping in mind
that "L" often means the extra engineering and materials needed to compensate
for the inherent shortcomings of zooms and ultra-wide lenses, the chances are that the
quality of images produced using the 28-70/2.8 would be no better than those produced
by either the 50/1.8 or 35/2. Indeed, if you don't mind changing lenses,
you could put together a 35/2 - 50/1.4 - 85/1.8 or 100/2 combo, or a 24/2.8 - 30/2 -
50/1.8 - 100/2 combo for about the cost of the 28-70/2.8L. Frankly, if I were to do it
over again, I would probably choose the latter combo over the zoom lens.
> Another helpful report. However, I will have to live with some
> limitations, given my budget. Moving birds at 400mm will just have to
> do! Until I win the lottery anyway.
Yet another possibility would be the 300/4L and 1.4x extender. . . .
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
