Hi, Since I'm new to the list I have been spending time lurking instead of posting but this discussion caught my interest.
Back in the old days I used to shoot a Nikkormat with a ratty used Nikon 50mm 1.4 along with a Tamron 28mm and 105mm. I loved using those lenses but lusted after, but couldn't afford, a zoom. Now that I have the cash to get a zoom, I find don't like them as much as I thought I would. So I went out and got a 50mm 1.4 for my EOS and was so impressed by it that I decided to get another prime. I was trying to decided between the 100 2.0 and the 2.8 when this discussion popped up. I was leaning towards the 2.8 and I think I was convinced by this last post. Of course all this leads up to the actual reason for this post. I need the cash to get the lens, so I'm offering my 2 month old 17-35 2.8L up for sale to any member of the list. The local camera shops are offering me $600-800 and about 10% more for a trade-in. If possible, I'd like to get more than that, as I'd like to buy all the necessary accessories for the lens, hood, filters, etc. So if anyone is interested please email me privately. Thanks Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: GreenScreen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EOS 100 / F2.8 MAcro > > > Does anyone have any > > experience with > > this lens, > > or would the 180/ F3.4 be a better choice? > > Cheers Wilber Jeffcoat > > I have the 100 Macro USM, and I love it. When comparing > this to the 180 3.5L, (only in specs) I'd say save your > money and go with the 100 for a few reasons. > > 1) The 100 is a very sharp lens already! Ask yourself if > you really need L glass for what you're doing. (and the > 80mm) > > 2) I'd use the "extra" money you could spend on the L lens > to buy macro accesories. (ring light, extension tubes, > diffusion panel, etc..) > > 3) Personally, I love blurring out the background in my > macro shots sometimes, and 2.8 will to more of that than > 3.5. And 2.8 is better in low light than 3.5. (but in > this case, if you're shooting T-Max 6400, or whatever, to > achieve the grain look, low light won't be a problem) > > 4) The 100 is an awesome portrait lens. (read: more of a > general purpose lens than a 180) And again, I love blowing > out the background at 2.8 on my portraits. > > Just my 2�w. > -Green > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
