I'd say 135L and 300/2.8LIS. I know it is hard to believe that 300/2.8 belong to this category, but consider how much it can do, and how good it can do, it is a real bargain!
For non-L primes, i have 28/2.8 and 135SF, i think both are very good bargains.
Thanks, I don't know about that lens. This is a falcon with a 2x on the 200 wide open. The two pros I was up against had 400 5.6Ls. They both said they missed the shots. The shot was severely back lit. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2122/2351495499_11dd96326a_o.jpg
Camera: Canon EOS-1D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 400
mh2000 wrote:
Yes, I much prefer the 35/2 over the 28/1.8. Much sharper, greater contrast and pop. Bokeh from both is nothing too great. "Build" and USM on the 28/1.8 is nice, of course, but not at the expense of IQ IMO. The close focusing of the 35/2 is very useful to me as well.
No idea why the 28 f/1.8 get such a bad rap on forums, I get great results with mine, and I mostly use it at f/1.8 or f/2. I had a 35 f/2 years ago, it was OK but I don't remember it having any wow factor over my 28.
If we take the new 200 f/2 IS, which is introduced at $6k, as a harbinger of sorts for the next generation of supertelephotos (and their prices), I am afraid the current 300/400/500/600 might be considered bargains soon.
PetKal wrote:
If we take the new 200 f/2 IS, which is introduced at $6k, as a harbinger of sorts for the next generation of supertelephotos (and their prices), I am afraid the current 300/400/500/600 might be considered bargains soon.
I'll accept that it's all relative, as long as no one tries to describe the 1200 f/11 as a bargain prime!
I'll put in another vote for the 135/2 for delivering stellar quality wide open, unsurpassed AF speed, and a lower price than any other (new/current) L that is a full stop faster than its poorer relations. (The 200/2.8 is certainly a fantastic example of price/performance ratio, but I don't think there are many 200/4 primes out there the way there are 135/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 competing with their L counterparts, which - except in the case of the 135 - tend to cost several times as much.)
chez wrote:
Really depends what you shoot. Try shooting a wedding with your three primes and you'll quickly appreciate the 24-70 lens.
Try shooting an ambient light wedding with 2 cameras- a 35L on one and an 85 1.8 on the other, and you will be glad you got those lenses instead of a 24-70L.
Because while being fine, the 28/1.8 lacks in sharpness and contrast. Don't know how you are comparing the 35/2 to it, old film work to new digital work? Compared on the same digital body my 35/2 always seems sharper than my 28/1.8... just more "wow" IMO. I took good photos with my 28/1.8 though... don't get me wrong, I don't mean to pan the lens... just that in real life shots, my 35/2 always seemed better.
>>No idea why the 28 f/1.8 get such a bad rap on forums, I get great results with mine, and I mostly use it at f/1.8 or f/2. I had a 35 f/2 years ago, it was OK but I don't remember it having any wow factor over my 28.
