Tuesday, April 5, 2005, 10:41:11 PM, Cotty wrote:
C> On 5/4/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>JF> Try the Canon 35-350 for a pretty successful 10x zoom.
>>
>>Well it's a news shooter's lens. It's certainly better than any cheap
>>10x zooms but it isn't anything earth shattering. You don't need that
>>much resolution when shooting news.
C> Er, sorry but that's bollocks. A 'news shooter' uses many lenses, but if
C> there was one zoom that is seen on any pap's camera, it's a 16-35 2.8.
C> Number 2 would be a 70 or 80-200 2.8. You would never see a news shooter
C> with a 35-350.
Sorry but that's not bollocks ;-) I did see one. Several - and some
with the newer stabilised L IS 28-200 (or -300, I don't remember).
My point was that according to most reports, the lens was created as a
niche news zoom. With small optical compromises but still "L" build.
The 17-35/2.8 (or 16-, in case of Canon) is used a lot, as you wrote.
As is 80-200/2.8 (the 12-24 and 80-200 are my most used lenses).
But in many situations, press conferences, parliament lobbies, et
cetera a 28-70 (equiv. of 38/43-105 depending on camera) gets used a
lot too. In fact, lacking one such zoom currently, I was severely
disadvantaged at an important press conference regarding our
governmennt crisis. Medium range zoom is very important for similar
events and almost all other shooters had it on. I had to back up
behind the TV guys, step on a table and shoot 80-200 above the backs
of the TV guys. Lucky me the shot was different from most others' and
ran four columns wide on the front page :-)
That is, in many situations with 1.5x (and maybe 1.3x) crop factor, my
80-200 is too long and 12-24 too short. One body with the super-wide
and another body with the L 35-300 (or the newer IS L 28-xxx) is a
good combination, with a big glass tele in backpack. You don't have to
carry another 28-70/2.8 just for the portrait range.
Good light!
fra
