I'd just like to know, why in it's FD incarnations, they could get the 1.4 to look through a 55 and 52mm filter, but with the EF it's got to use 58mm?

I'd also like to know was the barrel distortion complaints raised against the FD and SSC versions of this lens?

Mr. Bill


Jim Davis Nature Photography wrote:


"R.Sriram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:


The lenses you have (28-90 and 75-300) are not exactly stellar performers.
In fact, they are considered bottom of the barrel performers. You will
get much better results with primes or even with decent zooms such as the
28-105/3.5-4.5 USM. I chose a 24/2.8, a 50/1.8 and a 100/2.8 macro USM.


That's debatable considering hand holding. Oh how people love to knock
the 75-300. And then they go and hand hold L glass...

And of course you can't zoom a prime :-)

In the end it depends on what you NEED. I bought both the 50/1.4 and


*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

Reply via email to