At 09:16 PM 4/3/2006, you wrote:
At 11:19 PM 4/3/2006, you wrote:
>I also want to add the17-40mm f/4L and I am strongly considering the
>70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Buying all three is a little expensive so I have
>been considering getting just the last two. That leaves a gap from
>40mm-70mm. I suspect that I do not shoot much in that range anyway.
>What do ya'll think?
I use my 24-105 for 90% of my photography. The main problem
you will encounter with17-40 + 70-200 is that you cannot switch
easily between wide and medium telephoto. I also have the
16-35 and the 70-200. It really depends on what your need is.
The 70-200 is big and certainly not discrete. It attracts attention.
Any of those lenses are nice. The IS is really nice. I wished the
70-200 focused about 1 foot closer, or did1:4 magnification instead
of 1:5.8. The 24-105 does 1:4.3. I do a lot of nature photography
and close focus is an important feature for me. I'm bumping into
it a lot. More info to
I know it's not an L lens like the ones under discussion, but this is
one of the really nice things about the 28-135 IS that isn't often
mentioned, that it can focus so close. I don't know the exact mag
ratio offhand, but at 135mm it will focus down to about 11
inches. Very nice feature for my money.
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
