Doug Johnston wrote:
> decided that I'm going to buy a new Elan 7E, but I haven't yet decided on
> what my first lens will be. I'm debating between the 28-105 USM (~$300) and
> the 28-135 IS USM (~$500).
>
> Now, obviously the IS lens is better, but also more expensive.
Ah, but are sure that the IS lens is better, other than having IS? For one
thing, it is slower.
> real concern is in filters. I would like to have a good selection of
> filters to play around with, but the 72mm filter size of the 28-135 means
> good filters are nearly twice as costly as the 58mm ones for the 28-105.
> Additionally, I'll probably be looking to buy a longer range lens in the
> future - most likely the 100-300 USM which also has a 58mm filter size.
Hmm . . . although I too am conscious of filter prices, I remain skeptical as to
whether that's a good criterion for selecting a lens. That said, those 72mm
filters will work just fine on the 200/2.8L, which is a spectacular lens and one
everyone who needs a medium telephoto should have in his or her bag. If you need
to go to 300mm, adding the EF 1.4x extender to the 200L gives you an excellent
280/4L.
> So, my big question in all of this is:
> For an amateur photographer who never plans to go pro
Being a pro is not a requisite for needing good lenses. If you cut corners on
glass now, you may shortchange yourself in the long run, and you may never be
motivated to improve your work as much as you otherwise might. This does not
necessarily mean spending big bucks on �L� lenses�there are plenty of very
capable non-�L� EF lenses. However, if money is tight, it might be useful to
consider that the most bang for the buck is almost always to be found in
fixed-focal-length lenses. And, you don't need to be a pro to use them. Some
that come to mind are the 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 100/2; any
one of these lenses will outperform the two zooms you are considering.
> shoot mainly landscapes and architecture so I don't know that the IS would
> be of that much use to me.
I don't have first-hand experience with the IS lens, so someone else can step in
here, but the 28-105/3.5~4.5 exhibits considerable barrel distortion at the
short end, and would likely to prove unsatisfactory for architecture. You would
likely get much better results with the 35/2.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
