I did a recent test with the 70-200mm F2.8L IS against several primes. It holds its own very well. But that said you can see the primes are slightly sharped at great magnification. Would you see this in your images? Most likely not, but depends on how you crop and bow large you make them.
One interesting note, the Canon lenses are very much like the Zeiss lenses. They are sharp but not contrasty. Tamron lenses are nearly as sharp at the mid apertures but offer higher contrast so the "perceived" sharpness is there. One reason they look so good. Now before you all jump on this, realize the unsharp mask and sharpening in photoshop are doing this too. They neuter the original image. Peter K ----- Original Message ---- From: Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:45:02 PM Subject: Re: EOS Re: 200mm/f2.8 IS vs 200mm/f1.8 DO IS Fascinating discussion. Certainly the 70-200/2.8L IS is a lens I've considered. The versatility is very attractive. That aside, how does it compare to the 135/2L at the same FL and f-stops? 75% of the shooting I do is people, concerts and landscapes. The other 20% is wildlife - birds specifically, and migrating geese and cranes in particular. (5% for macro) One doesn't always want the longest lens for these, as sometimes the sweeping view of the flock is the best. Another argument for the 70-200. But when I'm out now, I have an nFD 400mm f/4.5 (on a T90) , often with the 1.4x on a tripod and shorter lens over my shoulder. But this is all FD - I'm very much wanting to convert this kit to EOS - film and digital. (I have an Elan 7 and a 30D, soon an EOS 3) So the EF 400mm f/5.6 is high on my list. I'm very much more inclined to trust primes, as good as modern zooms have gotten, so even though I know the 70-200/2.8 could convert to the same - plus IS - with a 2xTC, I'm slow to make that move because of my prime prejudice. I look and look at images from the 100-400 IS, and they just don't look as good to me as the ones from the 400/5.6L. At least not on the web, which is some indicator. So I have two very different needs to fill, and a limited budget. I put the 135/2 and the 400/5.6 in roughly the same price bracket. Do you think I'm wrong that the 70-200/2.8L IS is not really a solution that could cover these two primes? Ken ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
