Ian Stanley wrote:
>
> ... I have
> had an increased need for close-up and telephoto work over the past while.
> Also it seems that my eyes are failing me, as there seem to be more out of
> focus shots these days (shooting w Leica rangefinder).
>
>... - last week I bought a new EOS 1V and a 50mm
> 1:1.4 lens to give things a try. I am pleased with the results from this
> lens and the operation and functions of the camera as well and am now ready
> to try some longer focal length lenses.
> In the past I have only used prime
> lenses and was wondering how the quality of Canon zoom lenses compare to
> their primes? In particular I am looking at the 70-200 2.8 L just now.
Hello Ian
The 1:1.4 lens is very nice glass but not a representative example of
Canon's AF with "Ring USM" found in a majority of its lenses, and "FTM"
full time manual focus (override of AF focusing lenses).
The question you ask (raised a zillion times in the past [and future as
well]), takes the track of "prime(s) vs. zoom" theoretically divided
upon "sharpness vs. convenience."
There's no end to such debate, but fortunately even those who worship
their primes agree that there are two "L" zooms that give the primes an
honest run for the money. The first is the EF28-70 2.8L which has a
"ground, not molded" aspherical element and is probably considered the
sharpest of zooms. The second is the EF70-200 2.8L which also "runs
with the primes" and holds it's superb quality when used with Canon's
1.4 or 2x extenders.
There'll be those who swear by the EF85 f/1.8, and still more bragging
about the EF135 f/2 and many of the primes in between. As a user and
believer in Canon's L zooms I recommend you first somehow try the
EF70-200 2.8L and go from there. I very much doubt that you will be
disappointed.
> Thanks in advance.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************