BlueSky wrote:
> I currently own a EF28-105mm, saw some photos produced with my friend's
> EF28-70 f/2.8 the other day, and is tempted to get one. I really like the
> resolving power and contrast of the photos,
The difference is quite remarkable, isn't it? The cost of the 28-70L is pretty
steep though, and it's not small either--although since your friend has one, I
assume that's not an issue for you.
> Is there any lens that cost less (~50%) and yet share those characteristics?
> Will any prime lens produce the same great results?
There are terrific zoom lenses and there are terrific fixed-focal-length lenses.
But when you factor in price, a given level of performance will almost always
cost less (often much less) with a fixed-focal-length lens. In your case, I
presume you are considering a replacement for the 28-105 rather than a
supplement. If so, I would suggest you consider how you use your zoom--what
focal lengths do you use most often?--and then select one or more
fixed-focal-length lenses that fit your uses. For example, the 100/2, 50/1.4,
and 35/2 all cost less than half what you'd pay for a 28-70L--indeed, you could
probably get all three for the price of one 28-70. I would bet that all three
will outperform your 28-105 at their respective focal lengths, and would
certainly rival if not surpass the 28-70--indeed, these three primes would
brobably best the 28-70 in MTF tests. I suspect the extra "sparkle" I sometimes
see with the 28-70L is the result of its aspherical front element, which the
non-"L" primes lack, but frankly, I can usually only tell which photos I've
taken with the 28-70 and which with the 85/1.8 by remembering the situation or
studying the field of view.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
