Jeff Keller wrote:
> I think it is important to look at the lenses you've been using.
>
> The 5D has some very expensive and top rated long telephotos but their
> affordable selection is limited. 200/2.8 at $660 seems to be a good but not
> exciting choice. Probably the 70-200/2.8 at $1700 would get more use but
> it's sure not pocket change and it is a heavy lens. The 300/4 is $1100 and
> probably too slow to use with a TC and get good AF. The 400/5.6 is $1100 and
> doesn't have IS. I can't see the AF making it significantly better than the
> 400/4 MF Tamron. C*non came out with a new 16-35 which should do fine for
> the wide end at $1600. So ... I still don't have a single AF lens for my 5D.
>
I don't disagree with any of this, but see an inconsistency. The old, MF
Tamron is great, but for AF one may only consider Canon lenses? Tamron
makes a 300/2.8 in AF mount, for example; more $ than the C 300/4 , but
less than the C 300/2.8 IS.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|