Unfortunately I couldn't follow the beginning of the discussion, but I also
have a question with regards to lens quality.
I am planning to buy a 100-400 USM IS lens, and need something shorter as
well. Somebody sugested the 28 - 105 IS, but I am concerned about the
optical quality of such a lens. How bad is it realy (concerning the comment
below). At the moment I shoot with a 28-85 "prosumer" lens from the other
professional brand in the market place. This is regarded as one of their
better prosumer lenses, but I am not happy with the optical quality at all,
compared to the quality I get from the 300f4 which is realy outstanding in
my opinion.
I won't be able to afford the 28-70L or the 17-35L? I realy do not want to
buy something that I would not be happy about either. I would favour a lens
with a wider angle, something in the 24-50mm range or even wider. Are there
any suggestions? I would prefer a zoom, but might have to settle for a prime
as a substitute until there is enough money available for a proper zoom
lens.
Thanks in advance
Herman
> >>>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.
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
