Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Eric, The prime 24, 35 and 85 in addition might suit me as well as what I was thinking about initially, but on the other hand: the versatility of a zoom ain't bad either. I know from my M that I'm not a lens changing champion: about 80% of all my images with it are 28 or 35. Cheers, Philippe Op 11-feb-07, om 01:58 heeft Eric het volgende geschreven: > Philippe: > >> What are your impressions of the following lenses? >> Canon EF 24-70mm L f2.8 USM >> >> Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM >> >> Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM > > I've thought about getting the 16-35/2.8. Just haven't yet. And will > probably get the 24/1.4, instead. I opted for the 35/1.4 in front > of the > 16-35...and so far, I have not regretted that at all. > > My thoughts on the 24-70? Heavy. > > 70-200/2.8? Heavier. > > Currently, I don't own any zooms other than the kit one that came > with the > XTi. I've been tempted. If I were going to buy a zoom, it would > be either > the 16-35/2.8 or the 70-200/4 IS. That's half the weight of the f/ > 2.8 IS. > > My most used lens: 35/1.4 Followed closely by the 85/1.8. I use > my 135/2 > enough to keep it in the camera bag when I'm out and about. > > I would not buy a 50/1.4. I've heard problems with its autofocus > mechanism. > Mine simply stopped working one day without any obvious signs of > trauma. It > hadn't been bumped or bruised or anything. Just stopped working. > And from > what I gather, this isn't rare for the 50/1.4. > > Hope that helps. Even though it doesn't answer the question you > asked. :) > > > > > -- > Eric > http://canid.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >