Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > 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 have all of those lenses. I'm not much of an ultrawide guy, so I use the > 16-35 only for architectural interior shots, and I get it off the camera > as fast as I can. The 70-200 is a great lens, but it's tremendously heavy > and increases the weight of an already heavy camera. The IS works, but you > wouldn't need it if the camera weighed less. > > If I'm shooting people with the Canon, I put the 85/1.2L on it and stop > thinking about the lens. It's a lens of the same quality as a Summilux 75 > ASPH but it requires that I lug around a giant Canon DSLR. If I'm shooting > anything else, or if I'm just carrying the camera around in case I need to > shoot something, I put the 24-70/2.8L on it. > > But these days I mostly carry the M8 and keep hoping that my IR filters > will come in the mail. > > > > --- I own too almost all the lenses you mentioned. O basically agree with Brian with an important remark. I possible avoid the 16-35mm f2.8 -wide open is *horrible* in corners and borders while the 17-40mm f4 is *much* better. I agree in all other remarks excepting that 70-200 would not need IS if lighter. At 200mm with dim light isn't exactly easy shoot handhold. As always primes are better than zooms but these are very often more comfortable. Felix.