Skip wrote:
>
> 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
But the f/2.8 of the 28-70L makes up for a good bit of lacking IS.
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
***********************************************************
