On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:34:22 -0400, you wrote:
>So at this point you really need to determine what your needs are, because as you
>get longer (and shorter with wide-angles), lenses tend to become more
>specialized. If you're serious about birds and other wildlife (and many sports),
>then longer is better--you can't get too close. If your intentions are more
>general, with only occasional bird outings, the 200/2.8L with extenders is
>probably a more versatile option, not only in terms of focal length, but also in
>handling. I actually have a few full-frame shots of a red-shouldered hawk taken
>hand-held with the 200/2.8L and 1.4x extender that are good enough for 11x14
>enlargements, if you'd like to see a scan. The bottom line is that once you have
>the basics covered (roughly 35mm to 100mm using either fixed-length or zoom
>lenses), lens choice becomes more and more a matter of choosing lenses for
>particular uses. You end up in the somewhat disconcerting position that the more
>you spend, the less use the lens is likely to see. My most expensive lens (by
>far!) is also the one I use the least (by far). But when I need it, nothing else
>will do. This is not an inexpensive hobby (or vocation).
\
It's a good point, Craig, and I can see that eventually I will want
both options, as I do go out shooting birds a few times a month, and
shoot people at social events etc., about half to a third as
frquently. Since the 28-135 IS (29-129 according to photodo!) is high
on my list I think I will see how that does for me for a while, get
something like the 300m F/4 non-IS if I can find one (OOP, right?) and
then later get a fast razor sharp 135 f/2L or 200 2.8L or the 70-200
f/2.8L for people shots and such. I can't see affording a 300 f/2,8
anytime soon.
I'd like to see that scan for sure, please do send it along. Your
last shot was gorgeous! You mentioned the optical superiority of the
non-IS 300mm f/4L - photodo rates it wa-ay higher, something like 4.3
vs 3.4 over the IS version. For what MTF tells you, that's pretty
siginificant. Is there some inherent instability in the IS system
which downgrades the lens, or are they really different optics?
Ken Durling
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/
Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
