70-200 F4/28-135 IS

[IanD]

For folks considering the purchase of the above lenses and are not sure how they perform, may I suggest that you pick up this months issue of Shutterbug (March) and turn to page 113.
This article is by Clint Farlinger and is his story of converting from film to digital. Realize that Clint is a "pro" nature photographer and thus his choice of lenses is interesting. Check out the photos and then check out which lenses he used. Granted he was using a EOS-1Ds but the glass choice is interesting. Yes, the are "L" glass but "L" glass that is affordable by anyone (once you have finished the Kraft Diner routine)
The pictures are IMHO truly outstanding.
Of course he ran them through PS but don't we all?
Who said, "It is the person behind the camera that captures the photo?"

[samdring]

How about a hint of what he said, Don Quixote (pronounced properly) - us lot this side of the pond can't get Shutterbug as far as I'm aware

Thanks

[IanD]

How about a hint of what he said, Don Quixote (pronounced properly) - us lot this side of the pond can't get Shutterbug as far as I'm aware

Thanks
Sam,
Sort of forgot that some folks would not be able to get this mag. The story is OK but it is the images that catch the eye. He used a 70-200 F4 and a 28-135 IS for 6 out of 8 published images and they are outstanding. This chap came over from medium and large format to digital after his wife bought a pro-sumer digi to replace her P&S 35mm.
As he says, it took him 6 weeks to decide on the Canon EOS-1Ds and he has not regretted it one bit. The last line in the story is "... Looking back I guess there are a few things I wish I would have done differently, but probably the biggest thing is I wish I would have switched to digital sooner."
I could not help but think that if this chap who makes his living with his camera uses these two lenses, then a lot of us should be able to take stellar images with them too. Not to say that he does not use othr lenses. Au contrare...there are other images shown captured with a 17-35 "L" and a 400 "L".
When looking at all the photos, you cannot tell which images was shot with which lens.
Now I am not familiar with the 1Ds so I have no idea if it would produce a better image than the 10D using the same lens, but seening his work makes me happy to be the owner of a 28-135 and soon to be owner of a 70-200 F4.
Hope that this was not too long winded :lol:

[slejhamer]

Ian: Thanks; interesting article with great pics from relatively inexpensive lenses.

Also take a look at p. 14, Monte Zucker's photo of the Wood family. 28-135 IS again. I've seen shots from his classes using that lens too.

samdring: He doesn't talk about the lenses much, but he did say this about the 28-135:

"When tested with film this lens was comparable to Canon's top of the line "L" lenses, but when tested on the EOS-1Ds this lens was noticeably inferior ... this is not an issue with cameras that do not have full frame sensors since the smaller sensors don't use the edges of the lenses' viewing area where the most significant quality falloff occurs."

[IanD]

Ian: Thanks; interesting article with great pics from relatively inexpensive lenses.

Also take a look at p. 14, Monte Zucker's photo of the Wood family. 28-135 IS again. I've seen shots from his classes using that lens too.

samdring: He doesn't talk about the lenses much, but he did say this about the 28-135:

"When tested with film this lens was comparable to Canon's top of the line "L" lenses, but when tested on the EOS-1Ds this lens was noticeably inferior ... this is not an issue with cameras that do not have full frame sensors since the smaller sensors don't use the edges of the lenses' viewing area where the most significant quality falloff occurs."
Guess I missed page 14. Very nice. Thanks.

[samdring]

Thanks both of you - interesting point about edge fall-off of the 28-135 not affecting 10D and other non-full frame cameras. Also sort of ratifies what many people say on this forum in terms of 28-135 being good value for non-L and 70-200 f4 being as sharp as its bigger brother?

[slejhamer]

Ian - look at p. 16 too. Missed it yesterday.

Monte's shot of the bride on the beach, taken with the 28-135 IS.

Here is a guy who is a near legend among portrait/wedding photographers, who has fully embraced digital photography (not to mention Photoshop retouching) and uses a lens at which many pros would thumb their noses.

He also comments that many of his lenses are too sharp, and that he zaps his pics with some gaussian blur so that the subject's pores are not readily apparent! That was in the section taken with the 24-70L lens, the model among the feathers.

[IanD]

Ian - look at p. 16 too. Missed it yesterday.

Monte's shot of the bride on the beach, taken with the 28-135 IS.

Here is a guy who is a near legend among portrait/wedding photographers, who has fully embraced digital photography (not to mention Photoshop retouching) and uses a lens at which many pros would thumb their noses.

He also comments that many of his lenses are too sharp, and that he zaps his pics with some gaussian blur so that the subject's pores are not readily apparent! That was in the section taken with the 24-70L lens, the model among the feathers.
slejhamer,
I need new glasses. Real nice shot on pg. 16. Thanks for pointing it out to me