> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Neukranz, > Bill > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:11 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: EOS Another Lens Debate: 300 f/2.8 vs 100-400 IS > > > Chip, I agree. > > I think Canon's 200 f/1.8 L, the 300 f/2.8 L IS, and the 400 > f/2.8 L IS are > the 3 finest lenses Canon produces. (I should say 'produced,' since Canon > stopped manufacturing the 200 f/1.8 L.) > > I too shoot with a 1D. I too shoot with a 70-200 with and without a 1.4X > extender (and now with the 100-400 f/5.6 L IS). My experiences are quite > like yours noted below. > > But I have resisted the temptation to purchase a 2.0X extender. I'm just > not convinced that a lens in combination with a 2.0X extender is > as good as > simply using another lens without the 2.0X extender. And sometimes I have > to rent to accomplish this. > > When I get into a hockey stadium with poor ambient lighting (ISO1250, > 1/500th, f/1.8), there's still nothing that beats the gorgeous color I can > still get using a 200 f/1.8 L prime. > > And when I get into an evening baseball game, with gorgeous portrait style > sun streaming onto the batter's face (ISO200, 1/500th, f/2.8), > there's just > no substitute for the 400 f/2.8 L IS prime to stop the ball coming right > into the bat. > > Thanks for the suggestion on buying 'used.' If my need picks up > beyond what > I currently own and beyond my willingness to rent, I'll start > studying for a > purchase. > > Best regards, > > Bill Neukranz
Hi Bill, Yup, your list includes some of the best Canon glass ever though IMO I'd include the EF 135 2L in the line-up as it really is an outstanding lens. My personal opinion of the single best Canon lens in terms of sharpness and contrast was the EF 200 1.8L. These things are incredible lenses if you have the right situation and good light. The EF 200 1.8L made images that pop so hard it's unbelievable. Of course it's only a 200mm lens and a bit short for most of what I like to shoot, it's huge and weighs a ton for a 200mm but it does manage to lay down some incredible images. As to the EF 2X converter being a viable option, it depends largely on what you are hanging off the front of it. I had no issues with the EF 1.4X with an EF 400 2.8L or EF 300 2.8L and it works great with an EF 70-200 2.8L. But the EF 2X I would generally only use with the EF 300 2.8L if I had a really good position and could not get the shot otherwise. I always used to think twice about using the EF 2X with the EF 70-200 2.8L zoom because the results were always a little soft. The EF 2X noticeably reduced contrast and image sharpness on my chromes. This was also visible but to a much lesser degree on prints but still visible. The current EF 2X II should improve this somewhat and I'm hoping that I can live with the results when used on the medium sensor EOS 1D body with the EF 70-200 2.8L IS. Otherwise I'll end up with yet another EF 300 4L IS at some point. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
