Well hurray, the gmail idea seems to be working! Thanks much for
that. (We'll see how this comes through, not sure ablout my settings
yet.)
Lots of interesting comments here. One that hit close to home was
about the 50/1.8. I lost that lens ("Mk.I" version) in a burglary
recently and after much deliberation decided to "upgrade" to the
50/1.4. I've gotten some beautiful images from it, but have yet to
come to trust it. I had about givern up on its wide open performance
when suddenly I got a very sharp photo at f/1.4. I have yet to figure
what the variables sre, but have only had the lens about a month.
Jury's still out, but I will probably get another 50/1.8 I, since i
found that lens to be utterlyreliable and a really beautiful image
maker. The 1.4 does have nicer bokeh, I have to say.
I've often thought about the 100 macro, but I own the Tamron SP 90/2.8
and find it extremely satisfying once you get past the lack of USM.
It's been my mine concert lens, along with macros and portrait.
And well, yeah, a 600/4IS!! I wish. Close as I'll probably get is
the 400mm f/5.6L, which by all accounts is another beauty.
Know I'm forgetting some, but thanks for the input. I'm still pretty
sure the 135/2 will be my next lens. Interestingly, the same freind
also loaned me his 24-104/4L, which I've heard many raves about, but I
was underwhelmed. Of course I know you have to learn a lens, but in
an evening of using it I found a lot of missed focus and soft images
(@ f/4) even when focused.
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
