Like the poster who is asking about a single carry-around lens to replace my 35-80. I
am thinking of doing the same, though I don't think I need to go up to 200 mm
coverage. I compared the 35-80 with my 50/1.8 and realized how much sharper the
50/1.8 is. But I also like the convenience of a zoom. I rented a 20-35 L series zoom
and was frustrated occasionally with having to switch between three lenses to get good
coverage.
My 75-300 doesn't focus close enough to be a good portrait lens (5 ft. min focusing
distance), so I would like a zoom that goes into the short telephoto range.
I would like to read some opinions about the lenses I am considering, which include
the following:
Canon 24-85
Canon 28-105
Canon 28-135 IS
Tamron SP 24-135
I think the ability to go to 24 mm is great, as is the ability to go to 135. That may
rule out the 24-85 and the 28-105, although 85 mm may be good enough for portraits.
(The Photo.net review of the 24-85 is kind of funny, as Greenspun points out that, for
some reason, he doesn't use the 24-85 much with the availability of his L series
zooms. I'm not quite ready to spend > $1000 on a lens yet, so I don't have his
dillemma)
But I wonder how useful IS would be and how it may be more useful than the extra 4 mm.
The Tamron has gotten raves on Photozone, but I haven't seen many opinions of the
lens here. Also, no local store has one available for rental, though I am able to
rent the 28-135 IS. I, of course, relize that none of these lenses will have the
quality or the blurred background possibilities of the 85/1.8 or the 100/2.0.
Any thought/opinions?
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
