On 22 Nov 2005 at 9:23, James B.Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:40:06 -0800, Henning Wulff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote/replied to:
>
> >>I forgot, the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM doesn't fit my 10D, but
> >>maybe it can be converted or maybe I'll buy a 20D.
> >>
> >>How does it compare for sharpness with the two 100mm macros?
> >>
> >>Mr. Bill
> >>*
> >
> >I've not used the older 100, but the 100 USM and the 60 are
> >excellent. The 60 is a lot better than the 50, as far as I can tell.
> >This was on a 20D. If the angle of view suits you and EFS specs are
> >OK, then the 60 would be my choice.
>
> It's a shame none of those macro lenses have IS. That's why I prefer my
> 100-400L
> IS with an extension tube for 'macro' work. As well, I have used the 50/1.4
> with
> tube for very closeups.
Hmm....I now wonder whether the Minolta body-IS also works with even
a bellows?....:))
Not the worst argument to swap/add systems....;))
Willem (imagine, a Zeiss Tessovar with IS....;)) Jan
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
