I know that prime lenses are hold to be better (sharper, exhibit more
contrast, etc.) than zooms. But, in general, are consumer-level primes
better than professional-level zooms? For instance, and this is just a for
instance as I don't want to start a discussion on these two lenses, would
the Canon 100mm f/2 be better than the 70-200mm f/2.8L comparing both at
their sharpest apertures?
Second, a related and similar question: I hear talk about how good the
28-135 is and also the 100-400. I assume I should hear that talk that these
lenses are good, excellent or whatever compared to others in their range,
i.e., the 28-135 compared to the 28-105, and the 100-400 compared to the
100-300. We can make no general statements about the 28-135 range lenses
compared to 100-400 range lenses except as we compare specific models. A
100mm shot could be better on either range of lenses. That is, no general
statements of the type: "primes are better than zooms."
These are all examples for me to understand a conceptual point, not requests
for information on these particular lenses.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
