> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:12:41 +0900
> From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FD vs EOS
>
> Are you admitting that you use cheap consumer lenses,
> Michael? I got the impression you were an L lens user.
Not exclusively. I have the EF 3.5-4.5/28-70 mm II for
some universal people press work and sometimes use that
when I know it is for websites or newspaper print, where
resolution is not that crucial. Also I can fit the ML-3
ringlite for available light fill flash.
And then I have the shitty 75-300 mm as an emergency option
in my bag, that I used exactly two times last year when I
needed to bridge distance for newspaper work. I very
rarely need focal lengthes over 85 mm, I'm more the guy
closing in on his subjects. For newspaper work the 75-300
is acceptable though it is very poor at the long end.
I am rarely shooting sports, so I have no real use for
the 2.8/300 mm L.
And my EF 2.5/50 mm compact macro is also no "L" lens.
99% of all my work is done with either the EF 2.8/20-35 L,
the EF 2.5/50 mm compact macro or the EF 1.2/85 mm L
> There are lenses that fall between the 'L' and
> consumer lenses. The EF 50/1.4 is one of them.
Yes, but look at what happened from the EF 1.8/50 mm mark I
and mark II. They steved the distance scale, the metal mount
and turned it into a yoghurt cup. 1.8 is fast enough for very
many people, and I want a single lens as a reliable and very
rugged standard to be available for everyone.
You know what the price of the 1.4 is in comparison.
> Are you saying ALL EF lenses should have metal mounts and
> manual focus rings that feel good?
Yes.
> If so, there would be no entry level lenses.
Looking at what was possible with the EF 1.8/50 mm mark I ,
I beg to differ. It is often just a very small difference
that makes a lens mechanically poor. And it doesn't always
mean that making a lens better makes it *much* more expensive.
> But I don't think a lot of beginners want to pay for lenses
> like these to go with their new Rebel. Not everyone wants to
> pay even $400 dollars for a lens. Many people want a lens and
> camera for that price.
Unfortunately, yes. Some of it due to market forces, some of it
because people have never seen the difference. Voicing our wishes
does certainly influence market forces balances, and making
beginners sensible for differences might (and does) change
their requirement profiles.
The first hand test of a naked 28-300 against a prime lens
with proper lens shade is a striking experience. I try to
make that experience available to as many people I can get
hold of.
> With Canon, we get a choice.
I would love to get the choice for more ruggedness at lower prices.
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.photoquack.de
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
