On 2/2/05, Chip Louie, discombobulated, unleashed: >Personally I like primes. Back in the day (30+ years ago), I used to have >only primes because they were the only way to get high quality lenses. But >back then I only shot people and field sports so this was easy to do with >50mm, 85mm, 105mm, 200mm and 300mm lenses. If I could I'd own primes for >everything but I need too wide a range of focal lengths to be able to afford >the all of the fast primes and the idea of carrying them all is not very >appealing to me without a sherpa and two more spare bodies. I shoot with OS >1D and EOS 1Ds bodies so I have the usual Canon 2.8L zoom triplets (EF 16-35 >2.8L, EF 28-70 2.8L, EF 70-200 2.8L IS), and selected Canon primes (EF 15 >2.8, EF 20 2.8USM, EF 50 1.4USM, EF 100 2USM, EF 300 2.8L, EF 1.4X, EF >2XII), that suit my work (architecture, products, motorsports), and what I >don't own I rent at Samy's Camera.
Sounds good. I only came over to the dark side ;-) from Pentax manual focus about two and a half years ago. Started at college in 1977 with a Spottie (when I could get hold of it - there was one Spottie - film door held together with tape - and a dozen Zenit E's that ripped your film apart at the end - you know what it's like - students [I'm sure i can squeeze just one more frame out a this sucker - - d'oh!] ) I have to say that I'm very impressed with AF and IS - I picked up the 70-200L (and the 24-70) on a trip to DC last June, and the 1D is the ultimate in versatile mobile light gathering technique <LOL> however old habits die hard and a couple of Pentax MF lenses followed me across the border, the 15 3.5 and an 85 1.4, just for old time's sake. Actually they're both shit hot but horses for course etc. I do a lot of people, lots of functions so I've paired a 580EX with a Quantum turbo and it's an excellent combo. I'm continually impressed by Canon's exposure prowess - I simply do not get any duff exposures - at least non I can attribute to the camera. The D60 always threw a wobbly now and again but this 1D is pretty 'wicked' as my son says. I've paired a 2XII with the 70-200 but it's not ideal. I'm having a sojourn from 'purchase enablement' so a 300/4 is on hold for now. My trouble is that I lust for these little red rings on the glass - is it catching? The 35 1.4 looks like a killer and I would jump if pushed, but heck...must...resist.... > >The EF 14 2.8L would make a poor lens for street shooting, it's too wide, >too heavy too fragile. The EF 14 2.8L is good for architecture though and >outdoor shots are great with the EF 14 2.8L I would buy one but I'm not >sure I would use it enough to justify the cost. It's a very good if not a >great lens though if used with care. Agreed. It's so easy to abuse a lens like that, as well as the wallet. > >I have owned a couple of EF 20 2.8USM lenses and they were both pretty good >lenses on my film and digital bodies. I had an EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM for many >years which was as sharp a WA zoom as there was at the time (as good IMO as >the EF 20-35 2.8L with less distortion), had very low distortion even for a >prime. The EF 20 2.8USM has even lower distortion and is very sharp when >stopped down to f/5.6-f/11 with minimal flare. But the EF 20 2.8USM's >sharpness will suffer if you stop it down past f/16 but you should not need >to given the DOF that a 20mm lens has. I like mine and use it regularly on >the EOS 1Ds for landscapes and recently for stitched panos that I'm trying >to perfect. Hmmm, that sounds pretty good. I'm now tempted to flog the Sigma 14 and pick up the 20. Is it cheating top paint a narrow red ring on the barrel? 8-D Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
