The Kiron F2.8 I had was excellent. If I had chance to use it on an EOS mount I would buy it in a heartbeat. But I will also note that the new Sigma 70mm Macro I have been using runs circles around the 60mm EF-S. Best macro I have used to date.
----- Original Message ---- From: Henning Wulff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:58:44 AM Subject: Re: 50 f1.4 - EOS EF 135mm f/2L I got the 105/4 Nikkor when it came out, and later the 105/2.8. The 105/4 was definitely better, if slower. I haven't tried the AF version. When I got unhappy with the 2.8 Nikkor, I got the 105/2.8 Kiron (mid-80's, I guess). The Kiron is as good as the f/4 Nikkor. I now use the 100 USM Canon which I like; I also still use the 105/2.8 Kiron on the Canons, which is excellent but not hugely better than the Canon. One Canon macro which is better than the 100 is the 60 EF-S. The 50/2.5 definitely is not in the same class, and I wouldn't bother with it. I like macros; I have and use a 65mm/3.5 Elmar, 55/3.5 Nikkor (last version before the 2.8), and a 38/3.5 Olympus, 60/4 Zeiss Orthoplanar-S, as well as 25 through 120 Photars on a Leitz Aristophot. All of this stuff can have a Canon body behind it. Adapters to use most brands on Canon EF are readily available. -- * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com * ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
