On Sat, 26 May 2001 12:27:49 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, 26 May 2001 12:17:05 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>I planning on adding a lens and am pondering what to choose.
>>
>>I'm currently using the Canon 28-105 f3.5 and Canon 17-35 2.8L.
>>I know the the 28-70 2.8 L is superior to the 28-105 but am
>>getting acceptable results with the 28-105. the Canon 100mm
>>Macro would allow me to do Macro and seems to be well regarded
>>for overall sharpness. the 35mm f 1.4 L would extend my low
>>light level capabilities.
>>
>>I'm interested in hearing thoughts and opinions on these
>>alternatives. Oh, I can only afford to choose one.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>JimD
>>
>
>
>Unless you *really" need those 2 extra stops at 35mm - 2.8 is fairly
>fast after all - I'd go with the 100mm Macro - it adds a lot more to
>your kit. But then I don't know what your low light needs are for
>the 35mm. They may override. I have the Tamron 20-40 f/2.8 and so
>far it covers my w/a needs just fine. 90/100/105mm Macro is high on
>my list.
>
>Jes my 2 coppers
Ooops, I didn't see that the 28-70 f/2.8L was one of your choices. If
you want your "normal range" lens performance to go from "acceptable"
to "outstanding" I'd go for this. I don't own this lens, but results
I've seen from it are extraordinary - the lens has a "special" quality
that seems to go beyond its obviously fine glass.
Ken Durling
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/
Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
