After a succession of lenses moving up from the 75-300 consumer lens to the 100-300 USM, I finally decided that their longer zoom ranges were not producing the results I wanted and I bit the bullet and bought a 70-200 f4L. It produced really good results at all focal lengths, but with a 1.4 Tamron SP converter was a bit slow at the long end (although no worse than my previous lenses) - but gave better results than either of my previous tele-zooms.
Having used that for a while I *really* bit the bullet and got the f2.8L IS version. Every bit as good as the f4 but the extra stop and IS make for a truly usable medium telephoto zoom in a wide range of conditions, even with the TC fitted. The downside is the weight!!! I've decided to keep the f4 lens as a travel / hiking lens (it's only half the weight! of the 2.8) and use the 2.8 for most everything else. I've been so pleased with the results from these two lenses that I've just picked up another L lens, the 16-35L. It's no lightweight either, but nowhere near the weight of the big 'un. All I can say is I don't envy you guys who cart around 300mm f2.8's (or longer!). Needless to say I'm looking forward to using it and seeing the results. I've read quite a few reports rating it as quite a bit better than the 17-35L. Until now I've been happy with the combination of a 20-35 usm and a 17mm Tokina AT-X prime * the 16-35 covers the full range (plus a little) in one lens that's lighter and more compact than the other two combined. A quick check (viewfinder only) for barrel distortion at 16mm using the corniced in my bedroom initially showed a bit of barrel distortion * until I tried the bottom edge and found it looked like slight pincushion! An easy answer * the cornice is slightly bowed, so a straight corner shows distortion to be pretty minimal. So after a very quick heck it looks pretty good and AF even in a quite dark room (on an EOS 30, guys) was very good. Filling the gap between these I have a 28-135 IS and a 50 f1.4 - different use lenses, but the 50 at least is equivalent in quality to the L zooms, and the zoom gives very nice results, although it's variable length at different zoom settings is not so great now that I've used the L zooms with their fixed lengths. Still it's a great lens at a third of the price of the others. I used to scoff at L lenses, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I hope the fever subsides, my pocket can't take much more of this! Who knows though - if Canon *ever* bring out the much rumoured 24/28 to 105/135 f? IS L lens, I'll be lining up to buy one too. Regards Gary This mail has passed through an insecure network. All enquires should be directed to the message author. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
