"C. C. Casparian" wrote:
> It seems as though I'm not going to start babying my equipment -- I like to
> go kayaking, cave-dwelling, running, hiking, roller-blading with my camera
> on my back. Sometimes I fall. Maybe I should get a Yashica T4, but for
> now, it's Canon (body's doing fine!).
>
> So the question is: irrespective of price, what's the most rugged
> wide-angle lens in the EF lineup?
To be honest, if you really need rugged you're probably better off with an old
FTb and one or two of the BL-mount FD lenses, like the 24/2.8 or 35/2. No EF
lens is as impact-resistant as the BL-mount FD lenses. If you expect your EF
lenses to last you will need to protect them from impacts. :-(
> -- zoom vs. prime: is a 28-70L or 20-35 3.5 going to be able to take the
> rough stuff worse/better than a 28, 24 or 20 2.8, in general?
Probably not; bigger, more moving parts. The build-quality of the 20-35/3.5~4.5
is similar to that of the 28-105. IMO the 28-70L is too big, too heavy, and way
too expensive for the kinds of use you list. You can buy three or four 28-105s
for the price of one 28-70L. But if optical performance is a primary
consideration, the 28-70L is a winner. :-)
> -- specifics: I'm leaning towards thinking a 24 2.8 is what the MD ordered,
> but is the increased weight/size over the 28
I haven't seen an EF 28/2.8 in person, but the 24/2.8 is pretty small and weighs
only 10 oz. with caps and hood. Construction appears to be the same as for the
28/2.8, 35/2, and 50/1.8 Mk. I--if you have the Mk. I version of the 50/1.8 you
already have a pretty good idea of the build quality of the other lenses.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
