Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/9/07 12:30 AM, "Eduardo Albesi" <eduardoalbesi@ciudad.com.ar> typed: > Same experience here with Canon lenses. Both my old 20-35/2.8L and > 17-35/2.8L produce consistently much better images than the 20/2.8 > and 35/2 primes, and just a tad better than the 35/1.4L and 24/2.8. > The 28/2.8 maybe the cheaper lens in that focal length range, gives > about the same quality of the L zooms. > > Ed > El 09/04/2007, a las 01:15, Will von Dauster escribi?: > Lets see em! I'm not buying it! I realize there's an ongoing internet urban legend that Canon primes are a little weak and who cares because no one uses primes anyway (I do) but it doesn't take much to make a prime perform better than a zoom. Lift a pinky. Unless all your going by are shots of the want ads. maybe. 5 elements instead of 18. Less things floating around in plastic helicals which go bump in the night and never perform as well again. All an all a more elegant imaging experience with a lens one forth the size and 4 times the speed. Give me a prime anyday. And old non AF one maybe. A non super multi coated one with a dented lens hood or no lens hood. A slow one wipe marks or a scrach. I am shooting Nikons but in this regard I don't think there's much difference. I can just put more old primes on a modern body. A canon person can just use an old film body. Mark Rabiner 8A/109s New York, NY markrabiner.com