Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Canada, eh?
    Wow, I can't believe the difference in the photo comparisons. Amazing quality. I want.

    I want bad.

    Very cute kid by the way.

    Canon Digital Rebel XT | Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5/5.6 USM | Canon EF 75-300mm f4/5.6 III USM

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Los Angeles, CA
    I thought I remembered you recently using a 135L in concert with a 5D on one of those steaming hot shoots you do!
    You mean like this one?

    All the 135mm shots in this gallery http://imageevent.com/24peter/kimberlyjean were done with the "lowly" Canon 135 2.8 SF lens ($279)

    Compare it to this shot taken from this gallery http://imageevent.com/24peter/lorenafinato with the 135 f2 L -

    For both, go to the gallery and click on the image and scroll down, select "original" as the image size and look at the detail. I think the 135 SF performs nearly as well "L" lens, even on my XT (Kimberly's shot was done with a 5D). So I've decided that for now, the 135 SF 2.8 is good enough and the "L" is not worth the extra $600. But again, I'm not shooting someone's wedding in a dark reception hall or church. There the extra stop might be worth it. Plus I'm shooting at f4+ on the SF to maximize sharpness, though it is useable at 2.8. The 135L was sharp even wide open.
    Last edited by 24Peter; 01-06-2006 at 12:53 PM.
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts