Andrew Fildes wrote:
>On 16/07/2005, at 6:40 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>>OK, read my recent post about Can*n lenses. The 16-35/2.8 isn't as
>>good optically as the 17-35/4. I don't know much about the 24-70/2.8, but
>>I'll bet it isn't any better optically than the 24-85/3.5-4.5.
>>
>>
>Some confusion here. The 16-35mm is better than the earlier 17-35mm -
>both are F2.8. You are thinking about the new 17-40mm f4 which is
>better than the 17-35/2.8 (and about the same price new as a used
>17-35!).
>
Sorry, the mind slipped and got the aperture right and the long end fl
wrong. I did mean the f4.
>It is comparable to the 16-35mm being a touch sharper at the
>wide end and a tad softer at the long end - by an amount you'd never
>notice.
>
Exactly my point.
>Therefore, the choice is paying your money for the extra
>stop, which a pro will do and I could not.
>
And right on point again. With the low noise of the EOS DSLRs, it's only
going to matter in very few situations, which will be important to some
pros and some amateurs, but not to all by any means.
>I've used the 24-85mm and it is very good on 35mm - it was designed for APS
>(Canon IX bundle)
>
Well, I happen to have a 25-85/3.5-4.5, but not a 24-70. Are you sure
about the APS bit; that it is the same lens? Why would it then cover
35mm? I also find it hard to believe that they put such a large lens on
an APS camera.
>and the smaller frame showed up its limitations so I assume that the
>same limitations apply to a digital 1.6 factor image but it is a long
>way ahead of the consumer grade zooms.
>
Well, I've done no formal testing, but found it quite a good performer,
although it is mostly playing back-up to the 28-300 now. Certainly, as
you say, better than the cheapies. Good enough in any case for most
normal photography and normal size enlargements. And that's back to the
point I was making, that one doesn't need to spend a fortune to get a
really good lens kit for EOS, not the best possible, but really good.
>It is also vewy, vewy slow.
>
>
Now I'm confused again. It's the same optical speed as the Zuiko
35-105/3.5-4.5 and other Zuiko zooms that so many of us use regularly.
And when used on the DSLRs, it is, from a usability standpoint, even
faster, with the low noise at high isos. And focusing is USM, lightning
fast and silent
>And I will take that bet.
>
>
OK, send along the 24-70, and I'll get the results back to you sometime.....
>I am no speed bigot - I had better results on one shoot with the
>50/1.8 than the 50/1.0 possibly because the f1.0 is hard to use well
>but it IS soft wide open - speed isn't everything but a pro will
>sometimes accept a small performance loss for an extra stop or two
>and a better view in the finder.
>
>
And again, back to the point I was making that may easily get lost in
gear-head talk, what certain pros may need and be willing and able to
pay for, is not necessarily what I and many others need, or, often. even
want. I don't want a 50/1.0, or even a 50/1.2. No DOF wide open and I
don't try to focus in existing darkness.
>>The 70-200/2.8 is a pretty much universally acclaimed lens, but big and
>>expensive. Do you really want to carry such a monster around? The
>>70-200/4 is an excellent lens that's cheaper and smaller and lighter.
>>
>>
>Yes I do - because I want to use a 1.4X converter with it. And it is
>a joy to use. And there is no IS version of the f4 yet.
>
Yet for some folks, IS isn't necessary, depending on what we shoot. For
slow moving or stationary subjects, a tripod is all that's needed, and
speed isn't much of an issue, even with film. For action, IS is of
limited use, since it only corrects for camera movement, not subject.
And Can*n recognizes all this with the range of three 70-200 zooms in
the L series.
>Oh and someone pointed out the 77mm filter size I think, but Canon have
>obligingly used it as a standard on these beasties
>
And there you've said it; from my viewpoint, Beasts.
>so my short and long zooms use the same pola - how nice. If weight is a
>factor, I'll use a rangefinder instead.
>
>
A bit disingenuous, no? Saying in effect, that if weight is a factor,
you simply won't go to a long focal length. A valid choice for you, but
others may find that long, light and a little slower is a better
solution for them than simply passing on the shot.
>Now I'm just off to visit a bloke who owns the Canon 200mm f1.8 - go
>on, ask me if I'd carry that weight around! Duh!
>
>
And I wouldn't. Not that it's an issue, since I wouldn't pay for one
either. Horses for courses, and all that. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|