Look at the test report, I belive the later Canon lenses are much better
than the old third parties, if I'm a pro I will purchase both 16-35 II and
70-200/4 IS (or 2.8 IS), the total system cost is only around $5400, get a
50mm and 100 macro then it should covered everything you needed. The total
cost is less than what I have invested on the OM system. The problem is you
need a very accurate AF to make use of the quality of the lenses.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>I do have 2.8 lenses but they are Tokinas (28-80 and 80-200). I can't
> afford the Canon 2.8s or even the f/4s either. They work well in
> available darkness but they are a lot of weight to carry around. I
> would very much like the 70-200/4 IS and the 24-105/4 IS for day time
> shooting. But either one would cost me more than the sum total I have
> invested in Canon mount lenses counting both Tokinas and both Tamrons
> (20-40 and 24-135)
>
> But remember your goal was to try the 70-200/2.8 for focusing improvement.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> Yes, that is a good lens but I prefer the 70-200/4 IS, it has the same or
>> better optical quality and much lighter. Anyway, both are too expensive
>> for
>> me and I enjoy using OM lenses more. I wish I had carried the OM 50-250
>> instead of the Tamron 70-300 so that I had not rely on the AF.
>>
>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <Mike>
>>
>>
>>> Danger, Will Robinson.
>>> I have read that is Canyon's vacuum cleaner lens. That sucking sound
>>> is your cash leaving your back pocket and going into Canyon's account.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Next time I will borrow my friend's 70-200/2.8 IS and try it out.
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|