Chris Valentine wrote:
>
> 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.
The 77mm filters also fit my 300 f/4L and my 19-35 Tokina. They will
also fit my 70-200 f/2.8 L when I get it. So the cost of the specialty
filters, like a CP, is spread over many L lenses.
> Overall, I would not agree that the 28-70/2.8 L is an ideal travel
> lens. How about the 50mm f2.5 macro...?
Why not? The 50mm 2.5 macro seems like less a good travel lens than the
many focal lengths you get with the 28--70. IMHO it's only advantage
would be the weight difference.
Bob
--
//////
( 0 0 )
-73 de Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Everybody has a photographic memory. Some just don't have any film.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
