Question for CoolToolGuy:

[quickben]

I see by your signature that you have both the f1.4 and the f1.8 50mm's. Which one is the best ? (cost aside)

Also, how do you rate the 28-135 IS ?

Cheers, mate.

Gary.

[scottbergerphoto]

I'm not CTG, but I do have the 1.4 and this has been discussed at length before. The 1.4 is a metal mount, the 1.8 is plastic. The 1.4 has a nicer bokeh, things out of focus look nicer. They both are very sharp lenses. If you have the $, buy the 1.4.
Scott

[CoolToolGuy]

Hi Gary,

I have not done any extensive comparison tests on the f1.4 versus the f1.8. I really bought the f1.4 because I was using the fast lenses in a low-light theater environment, and I was changing lenses frequently. I was afraid that the plastic mount would wear out quickly because I tend to change them by feel, not by sight (although I have not seen any wear on the f1.8 ). Getting the half stop from the f1.8 to the f1.4 was a small bonus. I was never unhappy with the f1.8, but now it stays mounted on my Elan 7. With such a low cost, I couldn't see getting rid of it.

As far as the 28-135 IS - There again, it has sort of been outranked by the 24-70 L. It was the default lens on my Drebel until I got the 24-70, and I was very pleased with its performance. Now the 24-70 is the one that stays on. I liked the 28-135, but I guess I'm just a sucker for fast lenses. I will not hesitate to use it if I need more than 70mm, and I would certainly rank it head and shoulders above my 75-300 IS. If I get a second DSLR body, the 28-135 IS will likely become the other default lens.

My shooting lately has not lent itself to doing lens comparisons. I need to find some time to do some of those Belmondo-style comparisons (five ways to get 50mm, 4 ways to 35mm, etc).

Sorry I couldn't be more help.

Have Fun,

[quickben]

Thanks Rick !

That's a big help.

What don't you like about the 75-300 IS ? That is another lens I'm looking at.

Gary.

[CoolToolGuy]

Thanks Rick !

That's a big help.

What don't you like about the 75-300 IS ? That is another lens I'm looking at.

Gary.

Gary,

Softness, slow focusing (despite USM), shorter than I need (500mm may not be enough, but I may have to live with that).

The 75-300 was (is) a disappointment to me. I knew when I bought it that it was not an 'L' lens, but I had higher expectations of it, especially at 300mm. I wanted it as a stopgap lens to do motorsports photography, knowing that I would want to move up at some point. But it is not long enough to do that. I will be getting something else for that purpose, and I will consider one of the 70-200s to cover the space above the 24-70 L.

Good Luck and keep us posted.

Have Fun,