> Hi Jim & Ken,
>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:51:44 +0900
> > From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <snip>
> > Sharp is nice, yes. Framing and composition is everything for me though.
> > Love those zooms.
>
> Well, sometimes when I look at my well composed photos using my zoom,
I
> just had to imagine that some will look waaay better given more sharpness
> and contrast. After seeing what the extra sharpness and contrast can do
to
> an otherwise normal photo, I can only imagine what it can do to the better
> shots. I do like zooms too, but those that I can afford now seems to
> compromise too much of optical quality when compared to primes. For this
> reason, thoughts of selling my EF28-105 USM for a EF85 f/1.8 often haunts
> me. The 28-105 zoom is great when I _want_ f/8 or f/11 for outdoor shots
> using my favourite NPS160 film, it offers focal length versatility, but
not
> much versatility in aperture control, not with the kind of quality I have
in
> mind.
>
> > Can't take portraits with a 50, can't take landscapes, can't change
>> the
> > framing... etc.
>
> I've taken many portraits with my 50mm f/1.8, mostly full/half body
work,
> of babies/children at play. That's why it's on my camera for more shots
> than the 28-105. For tighter head & shoulder shots, the zoom does a good
> job, saving me money on soft filter.
>
> > took with it either. I remember pointing that 50 at beautiful vistas of
> > scenery and just putting the camera back in the bag. No way I could
> capture
>
> Mine kept being pulled out :) Admittedly, in these situations when
large
> DOF is required, my zoom would be on the camera, and I can imagine them
> sitting on a tripod with the mandatory hood ;)
>
> > From: Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > but the 28-135 is no slouch. And choosing your f-stop carefully, it's
> > wonderful. Now blowing things up to exhibit size I'm sure is a
>
> Like I mentioned earlier, anywhere near wide-open, the prosumer zoom is
> blown away. Even on 4x6 prints from your local minilab. In fact, my
> non-photography-savvy family and friends can tell that the 4x6 prints look
> very different, and often favours those from the 50mm. The resolving
power
> being exceptional for bringing out the subject for a razor sharp look is
one
> of the reason.
>
> cheers,
> BlueSky
That's weird, I am shooting wide open a lot of the time with my cheapo
zooms, and I'm very happy with sharpness, contrast and overall quality. Two
things though: I can hand hold very well, and I have a good lab. I'm not
afraid to have any of my negs blown up. In fact I often do. Yep, nice big
prints that can be admired from several feet back.
Look, if quality dropped to where I found large prints unacceptable, I'd
certainly invest in better lenses. However poor some people may consider
them, Canon's lower cost zooms will produce outstanding results for big
blowups with the use of good technique and a good lab. Get out and use what
you got and stop lusting over big white money pits.
Jim
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
