DaveS
enthusiast
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 300
Loc: Acton, West London.
|
|
Am I being precious?
Current kit 5D with 24-105 L, and 135 f2.0 L lenses, and Epson R2400 printer.
I've been thinking of going longer, and was looking at the 70-200f/4.0 L, but then I tought "I've already got 135, so.." I checked Mifsuds, and they do the 200 f/2.8 L for very little more than the cheepest 70-200.
So will I notice any improvement over the zoom? Do I need it? Most of my prints are at A4 at the moment but will be goiing to A3 shortly.
Am I being precious / pretentious / pointlessly perfectionist in going for "L" lenses or would the 70-300 f4.5/5.6 do?
BTW I've also got the 100mm Macro on my shopping list. and that's not "L"
Cheers,
Dave
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 316
|
|
To do justice to the 5D you need good lenses, L glass fits the bill perfectly. A prime lens is generally speaking able to outperform a zoom, expecially at wider aperture settings, but the 70-200 L lenses in all guises are excellent. It depends on whether you require the flexibility of the zoom, given that you already have a 135. It also depends on how much weight you are prepared to carry.
Those who have the 100 macro seem to rate the lens.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38288
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
I like the 200mm f2.8L very much. Mine is the old version with the built-in hood, but the new one is optically identical. According to the old AP test report, it's pretty close in optical quality to the 135m f2 - so it's really good. I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX, and that's good - about as good as the Canon equivalents - but not as good as the prime. I also have the 70-300 IS (non-DO), and that's respectable enough, too. I've been gathering all these lenses for many years, which is why I've so many - including the 100mm macro, and (FTR) the 135mm f2.8 SF.
In all honesty, it's not that likely that you'll notice a huge improvement in quality with the 200mm over the 70-200 - the main real-world advantage is size and weight. For siize and weight reasons as well as covering more options, I use the 70-300 most, though.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2715
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
I've had a 5D for 30 months, and the EF 200 f2.8L for much longer. I bought the EF 70-200 f4L about a year ago, and it has its uses (e.g. carnivals and similar) but my copy (the 2nd.; 1st. was returned) isn't up to the quality I get routinely from my prime lenses, L or otherwise on my 5D. My copy of the EF 100 f2.8 macro USM is very sharp.
I find that a good quality A4 print can show the differences between lenses, so I don't think you're being "perfectionist".
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
OneTen
'Two Breakfasts'
Reged: 23/06/2003
Posts: 2659
Loc: Devon
|
|
I bought the 200mm f2.8 L II from Mifsuds and it's a cracking lens, I've been delighted with it.
--------------------
Richard .......... My Website - My Flickr
|
DaveS
enthusiast
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 300
Loc: Acton, West London.
|
|
Thanks for the respose folks.
I guess it's now the 200 2.8, just a matter of saving the pennies.
Dave
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
