Hi Jim:
I was in your situation before and ended getting a 28-70f2.8L. However, the
truth is I use my 28-105 more than 28-70 simply because of its weight and
size. As I do mostly portrait and candid nowadays, I find my 28-105 and 50
f1.8 are sufficient most of the time. Besides, I find some people prefer
the softer feel of 28-105.
Anyway, it really depends what you're doing. btw, have you thought of 85
f1.8 or 100 f2? They're a great lens and very sharp (if not sharper than
28-70L)
Regards,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Which lens - 35mm 1.4L, 100 mm 28 Macro, or 28-70 2.8L?
> Daniel,
> Thanks, I think I haven't given the longer lens as much
> consideration as I generally work in the shorter focal lengths.
> The 70 - 200 is on my 'dream' list though.
> My biggest consternation is about whether to keep the 28 - 105 and
> diversify, or if I should replace it with the 28 -70.
> Thanks,
> JimD
>
> At 09:44 PM 5/26/01 +0200, you wrote:
> From: "JimD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (...)
> > I'm currently using the Canon 28-105 f3.5 and Canon 17-35 2.8L.
> > I know the the 28-70 2.8 L is superior to the 28-105 but am
> > getting acceptable results with the 28-105. the Canon 100mm
> > Macro would allow me to do Macro and seems to be well regarded
> > for overall sharpness. the 35mm f 1.4 L would extend my low
> > light level capabilities.
>
>
> The lens may vary on your kind of photography you'r doing !
> Why not a 70-200/2,8 ? Optically a gem.
>
> -- PhOTo -- vOYaGe -- GrAPhiSMe --
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
