> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Bell
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EOS Lens Comparisons
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
Hi,
The normal EOS primes (non L designations), with faster apertures generally
will appear sharper than even the best of the EOS zooms such as the EF
70-200 2.8L within the zoom's focal length range. Take your example of the
EF 100 2USM vs. the EF 70-200 2.8L, the EF 100 2USM is an excellent lens
with fast AF and excellent sharpness and contrast. The EF 70-200 2.8L is as
good a zoom as has ever been sold but even so it cannot match the high
contrast (and hence the appearent sharpness), of the EF 100 2USM.
I have the EF 28-70 2.8L and EF 70-200 2.8L zooms, they are standard
equipment in my bag along with and EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM. Surprisingly the EF
20-35 3.5/4.5USM is so close to the EF 17-35 2.8L in terms of results that I
passed on the honor of the short L zoom's short end distortion, bulk, weight
and of course cost. For my best work, work I want to count, work I do for
me, I will usually also take an EF 20 2.8USM, EF 50 1.4USM and an EF 85
1.8USM lenses to cover the lower range. At the long end I fall back to my
trusty EF 300 2.8L and an EF 1.4x or EF 2x if need be.
This is of course a generalization but will work in most cases when
comparing EOS EF lenses.
Regards,
Chip Louie
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
