> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Bantel
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS Re: My First L Glass
>
>
> Daniel ROCHA schrieb:
> >
> > From: "Thomas Bantel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Then again, the one extra stop means exactly twice the amount of light
> > falling
> > > through the lens. So you get exactly what you pay for. (Just
> joking) :-))
> >
> > And the weight is exactly twice ! Pay for what you get :)
> > Joking II : the Return ;)
> >
>
> Well done! A little more seriously:
>
> If the f/4 L zoom had been out at the time I bought my 80-200 f/2.8L,
> I would likely have chosen the f/4 lens. f/4 is enough most of the time.
> And for most of the few exceptions, I prefer my primes anyway. As much as
> I love my 80-200 f/2.8, I leave it at home much too often just for it's
> bulk and weight.
>
> Thomas Bantel
>
Hi Thomas!
But what do you have to carry in terms of primes to get the same focal
lengths, how much do they weigh and how many cubes to they occupy in your
bag? At the very least you'd need an EF 85 1.8USM, EF 135 2L and an EF 1.4X
or EF 200 2.8L to cover the same range effectively and combined they are
heavier, occupy many more cubes and are much more costly than a single
70/80-200 2.8 zoom. Granted the primes I mention are all sharper and the
85mm and 135mm lenses are faster but IMO not enough to stop me from using my
EF 70-200 2.8L. BTW, I have the EF 85 1.8USM and EF 135 2L (and of course
both EF converters), and they are noticeably sharper on trannies when
projected at huge magnifications, but not by much. And Thomas don't tell me
your old!
Cheers/Chip
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
