> > > After a succession of lenses moving up from the 75-300 consumer > lens to the 100-300 USM, I finally decided that their longer zoom > ranges were not producing the results I wanted and I bit the > bullet and bought a 70-200 f4L. It produced really good results > at all focal lengths, but with a 1.4 Tamron SP converter was a > bit slow at the long end (although no worse than my previous > lenses) - but gave better results than either of my previous tele-zooms. > > Having used that for a while I *really* bit the bullet and got > the f2.8L IS version. Every bit as good as the f4 but the extra > stop and IS make for a truly usable medium telephoto zoom in a > wide range of conditions, even with the TC fitted. > > The downside is the weight!!! I've decided to keep the f4 lens > as a travel / hiking lens (it's only half the weight! of the 2.8) > and use the 2.8 for most everything else. > > I've been so pleased with the results from these two lenses that > I've just picked up another L lens, the 16-35L. It's no > lightweight either, but nowhere near the weight of the big 'un. > All I can say is I don't envy you guys who cart around 300mm > f2.8's (or longer!). Needless to say I'm looking forward to > using it and seeing the results. > > I've read quite a few reports rating it as quite a bit better > than the 17-35L. Until now I've been happy with the combination > of a 20-35 usm and a 17mm Tokina AT-X prime * the 16-35 covers > the full range (plus a little) in one lens that's lighter and > more compact than the other two combined. A quick check > (viewfinder only) for barrel distortion at 16mm using the > corniced in my bedroom initially showed a bit of barrel > distortion * until I tried the bottom edge and found it looked > like slight pincushion! An easy answer * the cornice is slightly > bowed, so a straight corner shows distortion to be pretty > minimal. So after a very quick heck it looks pretty good and AF > even in a quite dark room (on an EOS 30, guys) was very good. > > Filling the gap between these I have a 28-135 IS and a 50 f1.4 - > different use lenses, but the 50 at least is equivalent in > quality to the L zooms, and the zoom gives very nice results, > although it's variable length at different zoom settings is not > so great now that I've used the L zooms with their fixed lengths. > Still it's a great lens at a third of the price of the others. > > I used to scoff at L lenses, but the proof of the pudding is in > the eating. I hope the fever subsides, my pocket can't take much > more of this! Who knows though - if Canon *ever* bring out the > much rumoured 24/28 to 105/135 f? IS L lens, I'll be lining up to > buy one too. > > Regards > Gary >
Hi Gary, Welcome to the obsession, there is NOTHING like shooting "L" class glass! Hey, I carry around an EF 300 2.8L, the "L" triplet zooms, both EF 1.4x and EF 2x converters (sometimes an EF 85 1.8USM and/or EF 135 2L or EF 50 1.4USM for portraits depending on access level), and a couple of EOS 1n's w/boosters for days on end at race tracks. The weight is not that bad. 8^) Try shooting on tranny film for a real eye opener! Regards, Chip Louie PS Dump the Tamron converter and get the real thing. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
