the 28-85 is the one to get, the 40-80 is not worth a thought and the 80-200 is probably very ok but Canon has the some of the finest lenses in that range
The Contax 35-70mm or perhaps the OM 35-80mm f2.8 may be options to consider in place of the 28-85mm. Maybe even the Olympus 35-70mm f3.6 - a sweet lens for a decent price - usually $250 or less for a mint condition copy - slightly cheaper if it is showing signs of light use but not abuse.
Gotta agree with the others......The Canon 70-200 L's are about as good for canon mount.
Regarding the 80-200, I'll give you some reasons to consider it over the Canon.
This lens is very compact and light-weight (for an MF lens). It takes 55mm filters. It is very sharp wide open (while some people claim the Canons are sharper, I have never seen any direct comparisons). The colors are just superb, exactly what you would expect from a Zeiss. Whether you shoot portraits or landscapes, you won't be disappointed.
I have had both the 80-200 Contax and the Canon 70-200/4L.
I enjoyed the Contax though the push-pull zoom is not what I prefer. Performance is very good but dropping slightly at the long end and vignetting was also visible around the long end. Color is right on the money. The Canon lens is very very good and if I were looking into this zoom range again I think I'd look at the Canon for sheer price performance, though I secretly lust for the Leica 80-200/4.
I saw some Zeiss vs Canon comparisons here and there, and indeed Canon is no slouch in short teles and teles. The IQ difference for me was marginal. Indeed, size would be the ONLY reason for me not to buy a $500-$1000 Canon EF short tele if I wanted to (and could, obviously ).
WA and portrait is a different world Here I'd consider Planars, Sonnars, Distagons, Zuikos, Rokkors and the like.
My Zeiss 80-200 has really become a favorite lens - I'm just addicted to the Zeiss image look and feel though that cursed 'one-touch design' makes the lens a pain to use. I was excited when the 70-200/4 IS came out and heard all the good things said about it. But when I looked at the images from it I was very unimpressed. They seem very dull and flat to my eye.
alexandre wrote:
I saw some Zeiss vs Canon comparisons here and there, and indeed Canon is no slouch in short teles and teles. The IQ difference for me was marginal. Indeed, size would be the ONLY reason for me not to buy a $500-$1000 Canon EF short tele if I wanted to (and could, obviously ).
WA and portrait is a different world Here I'd consider Planars, Sonnars, Distagons, Zuikos, Rokkors and the like.
I agree completely with the above. I'll stick with Canon for the long end, ie 70-200. It's Canon's wide angle and "normal" range zooms that are now leaving me wanting, which is why I'm exploring the Contax MF zooms in that range.
The 35-70 is appealing, but the range might be too narrow for me. Other than primes, the 28-85 is appearing to be one of my best options for improving things in that range. Another lens I might consider is the Contax 35-135. Very rare and pretty costly, but it may be worth it.
I'm liking the 35-135. It's slow, but I'm more comfortable shooting it wide open than the 24-105L.
The 35-70 is a limited walk around lens, but it's great in a landscape kit:
Nikon 14-24, Contax 35-70, Canon 70-200L f4 IS and a 1.4TC
That covers it all.
dcmiller wrote:
I'm liking the 35-135. It's slow, but I'm more comfortable shooting it wide open than the 24-105L.
The 35-70 is a limited walk around lens, but it's great in a landscape kit: Nikon 14-24, Contax 35-70, Canon 70-200L f4 IS and a 1.4TC That covers it all.
Well, today I purchased the Contax 35-70. Found one mint at my local camera shop. I haven't done much with it yet, but I did manage to take some quick pics of my wife while she wasn't looking. Used my 1Ds II.
Well, let me tell you .... if this what the lens can do under casual circumstances, I can hardly wait to use it for careful, studied shooting. The images were astonishingly sharp and lifelike, with a "roundness" and fullness to the images that is quite unique in my experience. I have never seen hair, eyes and overall skin detail like I saw today from this lens. Not from my 24-70 f/2.8, not from my 50 f/1.4, my 85 f/1.8 or any other lens I've owned/used/tried/rented.
).