On 28 Dec 2000, at 11:04, Ken Durling wrote:
> >But if you want also a 100mm Macro, buy the EF 100mm f/2,8 Macro USM,
> >and buy the 50mm f/1,4 !
> >
> >2 macro lens are probably too much overlap but the 50 1,4 can be a
> >great solution for available light photography !
>
>
> Thank you Daniel - this confirms the direction of my thinking!
> Probably more affordable than the 28-70/70-200 zoom route anyway. I
> think I'll just save and get a 400mm 2.8L for shooting birds!
I just bought my first Canon prime...the 50/1.4, and am considering
replacing my consumer zooms (20-35, 28-105, 100-300) with primes or L-
zooms. I'm looking for more speed and sharpness...particularly in
the longer focal lengths.
I did compare the cost of going with the 85/1.8, 135L and 200L vs.
the 70-200 2.8L...the L zoom is actually a little cheaper...and I
haven't even thrown in the 100 USM macro yet! It looks like the 70-
200 4.0L may really be a "bargain"...as has been discussed here.
I haven't looked at the 28-70L combined with the 70-200 2.8L compared
to separate primes, but that full range may be covered a little less
expensively with the primes, depending on how much gap you can
tolerate between lenses focal-length-wise. I also like the idea of
multiple lenses in case of lens failure...not to mention that primes
can be purchased on an "instalment" basis! Admittedly, the primes
are more difficult to carry if you've got a full collection.
BTW...
I finished off a roll of 400 speed color print film yesterday with
the 28-105 @50mm compared to the 50/1.4 at a variety of f/stops.
Just a "quickie" test to see if I could notice any difference in
prints...I haven't even looked at the negatives yet. The target was
the standard newsprint lens test. Both at the center and corner the
50 beat the zoom (with both lenses wide open - 1.4 vs.
4.0)...noticeable just in the 4x6 prints w/o any further
magnification. Both of course got better when stopped down, and the
zoom got closer to the 50, but only after being stopped down a couple
stops...then the zoom wasn't greatly different from the 50 wide open.
So, I'm pretty happy with the 50...and I had no real complaints with
the 28-105's performance before.
Not a proper test I realize, but it wasn't intended to be. I'll
repeat it again one of these days with Velvia....in fact, I have a
friend with a 28-70L and another buddy just got a Rebel X with a
what, 35-70? Hmm, perhaps a 4-way test!
FWIW,
Lee
--
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
Cornelia, GA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
