Hi Ken,
I've had the 135 f2L for many years, and I'm sorry to say that whilst I
appreciate its sharpness, contrast etc. when I do take it out, I prefer
carrying the much lighter EF135 f2.8SF. (I don't do indoor sports!)
Previously I was accustomed to the size and weight of the Minolta 135
f2.8MD. What I'm thinking of here is the extra weight of adding the 135 f2L
to an already heavy bag. (I did injure my shoulder some years ago due to
carrying my over-weight camera bag.)
Can't comment on your other choice as I've yet to convince myself that any L
zoom is worth getting for me. (I do have several L teles and take them out
as required for nature shooting.) I have carried the ridiculously cheap and
lightweight 80-200 f4.5-5.6 several times, and been pleasantly surprised by
how good the images have been - albeit at around f8 / 11. When already
suffering from oxygen exhaustion at high altitude, the less weight the
better - and high brightness came with the territory!
(Current body 5D and printing to A3+ for an indication of my sharpness
requirements.)
Malcolm
Milton Keynes, UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:54 AM
Subject: EOS lens choice 135/2 + 70-200
OK, another "what lens" post. I'd appreciate being indulged some
feedback - I know it's ultimately my decision.
I've been shooting with a large arsenal of FD lenses for a long time, the
only EF lenses I have are the 50/1.8, Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro and the
28-135 IS. I shoot wildlife, concerts, people, landscapes and want to do
more portraiture. All my wildlife shooting has been done with manual focus
long teles.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
