Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm using the old 20-35mm f2.8 L on my 5D, and I'm rather happy with it -
certainly it's better than the couple of 17-40s I've tried. I've had Canon
for years now, so I have a fair collection of lenses - a Jeffrey-like 3 50s
(still two missing from the set, the f1 and f1.2 Nocticompetitors) of which
the f2.5 Compact Macro is the king; the rather decent 100mm f2.8 USM Macro,
200mm f2.8 L and 300mm f4 L primes, the 15mm Fisheye for Hemenwayesque
shots, and the cheap and fairly cheerful 28mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.8 SF. For
zooms, I've got the old 28-135 IS USM which I must replace, and the Sigma
70-200 f2.8 EX, a lens on a par with the Canon equivalent, and also the
cheap Canon 70-300 IS USM for lightweight travel. Oh, and the SIgma 12-24
EX, the only competitor for the 12mm C/V lens. I also use various Zeiss
lenses with adaptors. the only lens I'm really not happy with is the 28-135.
Nick
----- Original Message ----
From: Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be>
To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Monday, 12 February, 2007 8:37:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] not entirely OT: the recurrent dilemma
I read different stories about the 16-35 and the 17-40. Seems that
it's a piece to piece comparison thing.
Looks like unstable production. Maybe I'd better go for 2 primes in
this range.
Thanks for the info,
Philippe
Op 12-feb-07, om 18:52 heeft F?lix L?pez de Maturana het volgende
geschreven:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
___________________________________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo!
Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html