Chris Valentine wrote:
>
> Gerry Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> >I started wondering whether there was a single lens that would be
> >convenient for travel, and the one that came to mind was the 28-70 L...
>
> You really need to try it to appreciate how big a lens it really is.
> Plus you've got to pay for 77mm diameter filters, and a polarizer
> (which you really should be carting about with you for landscapes and
> the like) of that size is a *lot* of money (circa 100 UKP for a decent
> one). I haven't bought one myself yet, but will have to some day soon.
>
> >Is anyone else using the 28-70 L with a 2x converter? How about
> >diopters?
>
> Well, it won't work with the Canon converters, so you're going to
> sacrifice a bit of quality. Its a bit limited on closeup too since it
> can only manage about 1:4 and I don't know if diopters are even
> available in 77mm.
>
> Overall, I would not agree that the 28-70/2.8 L is an ideal travel
> lens. How about the 50mm f2.5 macro...?
>
> Chris.
> --
> Freelance sports photography
> http://www.hockeyphotos.com/
I'd have to vote for the 28-135 IS as the ideal travel lens, if you're
only going to pick one. Though not as sharp as the "L" lenses, it is
sharp, has the same width as the 28-70 with more reach, and IS will let
you use it in low light situations where flash is not allowed, like
museums, and still get good depth of field.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
