[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/replied to: >I know the 135 2 is sharp and I know IS is good stuff. I know all photodo >ratings ... > >Questions: >- Will I shoot nice portrait with the 70-200 IS in a studio or outside? >- Will I have to change lenses often when choosing for primes and shooting >landscape? >- Can I let my tripod at home when shooting landscape with the IS? >- Can you give me your opinion on handling en the three choices? > >I guess all three choice are good. Could I say A=quality B=comfort C=budget?
Geez, lens choices are tough. You already have a pretty good lineup. I'd say perhaps you should concentrate on where you take most of your photos. It sounds like perhaps landscape is your thing. And some portraits. If portraits, then you already have the 28-105 since sharpness and distortion is not a concern. If landscapes, the 20-35 is nice. So you really don't need an upgrade. On the other hand, if you just have to get some new lenses, maybe the 70-200 would be nice for you. IS is great. But for landscapes, most people want maximum sharpness and find a tripod give them time to properly compose. If you're into hiking, then lighter is better, and so the 70-200 f4 IS would be swell. And it'd be nice for portraits, not quite so huge as to block your whole face. I think f2.8 for portraits of overrated myself. It's ok for whole body shots from long distances, but for head and shoulders, it simply won't put the whole face in focus. I have the 85/1.8, it's a lovely lens. Would be swell for portraits. You can pick up a good used one very cheaply. If you have to think about lenses so much, maybe you don't really need to buy one now... -- Jim Davis Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com Replies in plain text only please! * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
