Hi,
Thanks for the replies. I'm s*ubscribed to the digest format, so please
pardon my reply in this format as well.
>>>George wrote:
While prime lenses are a good option as far as optics go, there are some
zooms out there, like Tokina 28-80/2.8 AT-X pro, and Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX that
will cost about half of Canon 28-70L and will still produce results that are
as good as Canon L lens.
<<<
I was looking thru your Scotland photos, and they look stunning! Some
of the photos really do show the crispness I noted in the 28-70L. While it
may not be as awesome as the L lens (or maybe not, can't tell yet), it sure
is worlds apart from my EF28-105. I will certainly check them out, though
my only concern is getting one which works on my EOS 30.
>>>Bob Sull wrote:
I don't know of any zoom that can do what my 28-70 L does at half the
price or I would have bought it.
<<<
I'm just looking for something I can afford (in the near future),
whether it is prime or zoom, f/2.8 or f/8, 0.3kg or 3.0kg, it is ok as long
as the optics are that good. Poor man like me needs to compromise on
certain things. :)
>>>Andy White wrote:
Thats what you get in the L series lenses. The only other lenses I know
that come close are the 50mm 1.4 (which I have) the 100mm macro, and 100mm
2.0. There
maybe more, but those are the ones I have had experiacnce with
<<<
I know this is subjective issue of how close is close, guess I need to
look at some reference pictures to find out. I know MTF graphs will give me
sharpness readings, and those primes are about the sharpest lens one can
buy, but would any test give hard data on crispness, contrast, resolving
power? and yes, I use these terms in vain to describe the difference I see
between the L and consumer zooms.
>>>fcc wrote:
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.
<<<
No kidding, my eyes popped out as my hands were trying to catch what was
jumping out from the photo! There is no comparison. This is really
something that need to be seen to believe.
>>>fcc wrote:
probably 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.
<<<
Ah, "sparkle", well said. Wonder if Canon contracted those toothpaste
companies to produce the flourite lens elements. As you know, what they can
do to your teeth, they can do to your pictures too ;) I'm glad to hear that
85/1.8 is that good. In the 70-200 range, the 70-200L f/4 comes to mind.
Thanks,
BlueSky
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
