28-70/F2.8 versus 50/F1.4 and 24/F2.8

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

What are the pros and cons between 28-70/F2.8 lens versus 50/F1.8 and 24/F2.8 lenses.

Assume the 70 is covered by another lens.

The 50 and 24 together cost about half the price of the 28-70. I suspect the picture quality of the zoom may be a little better.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), November 22, 2000

Answers

oops. I meant to type 50mm/F1.4 lens.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), November 22, 2000.

"I suspect the picture quality of the zoom may be a little better. "

That is not likely.

-- olenbeck (chaohui@msn.com), November 22, 2000.


Nearly all zooms have more distortion at the ends of their range than any fixed focal length lens, in my experience. They also tend to be more prone to flare than fixed lenses. Also, the wider aperture of the 50mm will make viewing much easier and allow you to take hand-held pictures in much lower light than the zoom. Add to that the fact that a 28-70 f/2.8 is likely to be just as bulky, and to weigh more than the 2 fixed lenses together, and the fixed lens option looks more attractive all the time.
The difference in coverage of a 24mm lens over a 28mm is considerable, though, and you'll probably want to fill the gap between the 50 and the 24 with a 28mm or 35mm in the end.
On the whole, if your style of photography doesn't dictate that your camera has to be always ready for any shot, and you don't mind the fiddle of changing lenses, then the fixed lens option will almost certainly give you better quality.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), November 23, 2000.

The advantage I see on having a zoom (which I don't have and don't need) is that I won't have to change lenses when I'm shooting something fast-paced. The primes however are smaller and lighter, and I use in situations when I don't need to change lenses or when I feel like just shooting with one lens.

-- Ronald R. Gregorio (gregorio@ksc.th.com), November 23, 2000.

Primes over zooms...After many years of trying, this is exactly what I have come to the conclusion works for me best. Some of the benefits:

Cost- as stated, the cost of the "pro" level zooms are many time the cost of the lenses it replaces. Cheap f4-5.6 zooms are not even close quality wise compared to primes.

Size- During actual use, any prime will be smaller than the large heavy zoom. Additionally, 52mm filters are cheaper than the 72 or 77mm ones required for the zoom. You have the option of leaving gear at home and "going light" on those times when you don't feel like loading up, or it is inappropriate. Less is often more.

Operation- Many of the zooms have abandoned the important things like depth of field scales. Having a wide angle lens that does not allow hyper focusing techniques is not a tool for serious photography. A pre-set 24mm lens, stopped down and set for its hyperfocal setting is faster than autofocus. A brighter viewfinder will allow better composition and focusing in lower light. Primes usually win here. Stealthy candids are better pulled of when you don't look intimidating... small lens, small profile.

Optical Performance- Any zoom is a compromise, even though the better ones are very good. If it is understood that a lens is at its best at about three stops from maximum, then a 50mm f1.4 lens at f4.0 will be better than the zoom at the same stop. Some of the optical formulas for the moderate focal lengths are consider to be fully developed. if you want the sharpest... go prime.

All eggs in one basket- A "do it all" zoom that fails, or is dropped and broken effectively puts you out of the game. Multiple primes will allow you to get something on film. Even if you go the zoom route, keep a prime from within the zoom length for emergencies... a 35mm for a 28-70, or a 85mm for a 70-210. You lose a lot if you drop your 28-200 and it is all you have.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 23, 2000.



I have the 28-70f2.8, 28f2.8, 50f1.4 and 85f1.8.

Firstly: all of the lenses give high quality images, so that's not an issue to me as regards this question.

If I'm photographing predictable subjects and/or have time I will use the prime lenses. They're lighter. Two of them give brighter images on the screen. They allow hand-held shooting in lower light and have a greater range of depth of field. For image creation they win hands- down.

If the subject is unpredictable then I will use the zoom. It's very heavy. It's not discrete. It's two stops slower than the fastest prime. However, at a wedding it was invaluable. In fact its non- discrete nature made sure that everyone was looking towards the camera.

I had the primes before the zoom, but I got the zoom sec-hand for a wedding. I was going to sell it afterwards but once I had it, I just couldn't. I was going to sell the 28f2.8, but it's not in high demand and is sometimes convenient (smallest and lightest of the lenses listed above).

-- Paul McSweeney (paulmcs@clear.net.nz), November 23, 2000.


Howard - too bad you can't try these lenses out. You'll quickly come to some personal decisions. Every year they have various photo expos around the country where all manufacturer's allow people to try out their equipment. Some of the bigger stores do also. Also, the Nikon School has a lot of equipment on display at their classes.

I think that zoom is about 1000 grams. That is like 2.2 lbs. With the hood it's even bigger, but it is a great lens. Extremely functional if you don't mind hand holding and don't a faster lens. It does flare some into the sun. Zooms also allow you to crop a shot.

Until recently, I preferred prime lenses. I find the 80-200 f/2.8 two heavy (about 1150 grams) for my comfort, although it's a great lenses, and is probably very well suited for studio in addition to photojournalist use. But lately, Nikon zooms have improved greatly, the 17-35 mm f/2.8 is the best zoom I've ever used, and the 28-70 is also super, but big.

I always use lens hoods to reduce flare. I don't know why you just mention the 24 and 50. I had a 24 for 16 years, but it takes talent to effectively use lenses like the 24 and wider.

If you're a casual shooter, you might like the zoom, ditto if you're a pro. I'm thinking about replacing my 28 f/2, 35 f/2 and 50 f/2 lenses with the zoom, but the 28 and 50, at least the lenses I was lucky enough to select, produce sparkling photos.

But there are many successful pros who made their livings using a few lenses well, especially the primes in the 20 to 105 mm range. The 28 to 105 range, I think, are your people lenses.

-- DJSoroka (DJ2SOROKA@msn.com), November 24, 2000.


Standard range zooms don't make a lot of sense to me. You pay a big speed penalty and unnecessarily complicate some lenses which generally are great flare-busters. The weight also intimidates me.

My kit is a 20/2.8 AFD and a 50/1.4 AIS right now. Together they cost a whopping $650 and weigh a little over a pound -- certainly less than my F3. I'm pretty happy with them, and the alternative pre- AFS zooms I considered would have gone for $2000.

"I suspect the picture quality of the zoom may be a little better."

This I think might be false; I have yet to use a zoom which betters a good prime, and the 50/1.4 and 24/2.8 have excellent reputations.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


Well, on the main question, it seems to depend on whether or not one thinks there will be time to be changing lenses.

On the question of quality, I refer you to: http://www.photozone.de/result.htm

Note that the 28-70/F2.8 zoom lens is rated: Performance Wide or Long when wide/open: Very Good Performance Wide or Long when stopped/down: Very Good Plus Also, little vignetting, little distortions, and little flare.

The 50/F1.4 Lens is rated wide:Good Plus, long:Very Good Plus. Very close, but not as good as the zoom. Perhaps at F2.8 the 50mm lens will perform as well? But who really wants a lens that requires a certain F stop to deliver the desired quality?

Also, the 28/F2.8 is rated wide:Good, Long: Very Good, but it also has Significant Vignetting.

The 24/F2.8 is rated very similar to the 28mm lens except it has little vignetting.

So in conclusion, assuming this is a source of accurate information, the zoom is superior to the 28/F2.8, and is also superior to the 50/F1.4

However, the ability to shoot indoors without a flash using the 50/F1.4 may outweigh its lower performance.

Canon's 28-70/F2.8 zoom looks to be the top performer at all focal lengths and all apperatures.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), November 25, 2000.


I meant to specify the web site:

http://www.photozone.de/result2.htm

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), November 25, 2000.



Well, I have all three of these and can definately say, from an image perspective, I prefer the zoom and be a large margin.

The only drawback is size and handling.

-- Mike Milton (mike@arttech.on.ca), November 26, 2000.


howard, i think you are a little mixed up on your interpretation of the photozone ratings. does it make sense to that a 50mm lens would be rated at "long" and "wide" settings? think about it. only zoom lenses are rated at the long and wide settings. i think you were talking about the 50 ratings "wide open" and "stopped down". anyways, i own the 24mm, its a great lens--small, very sharp, with a minor amount of flare when the sun is in the frame. the d.o.f. scale is usefull when you need it--won't get a useable one on a zoom. i just ordered the 50/1.4 to use indoors and maximize flash power. the 28-70 looks like a nice lens--probably compares in sharpness and maybe flare to primes. however, its big, heavy, expensive, and relatively slow (compared to 1.4/1.8 etc.)

-- josh (whoha33@aol.com), December 05, 2000.

At http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html the results of lens sharpness tests for Canon lenses are available.[br] For the EF 28-70/F2.8 zoom lens the following is listed:[br] Effective focal length: 29 - 67[br] Weighted MTF for 28 mm: f2,8 0,77, f8 0,81[br] Weighted MTF for 40 mm: f2,8 0,75, f4 0,81, f8 0,83[br] Weighted MTF for 70 mm: f2,8 0,70, f4 0,77, f8 0,81[br]

So, it is really a 28mm to 67mm lens.[br] At all f-stops and at all focal lengths tested, the lowest Weighted MTF is 0.70 (in Europe it seems they use a comma instead of a period). [br]

For the 50mm/F1.4 lens the following is listed:[br] Effective focal length: 51[br] Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f1,4 0,58, f2 0,73, f2,8 0,78, f4 0,84, f8 0,86[br] So, for the 50mm/F1.4 lens, f2 is required to exceed a MTF of 0.70, and f2.8 is necessary to match the sharpness of the 28-70/F2.8 lens at 40mm (sorry but photodo.com did not test the zoom lens at 50mm). [br]

Now a similar examination can be made at the 24mm or 28mm prime lenses.[br] For the 24mm/F2.8 lens the following is listed:[br] Effective focal length: 24[br] Weighted MTF for 24 mm: f2,8 0,77, f4 0,81, f8 0,80[br]

For the 28mm/F2.8 lens the following is listed:[br] Effective focal length: 28[br] Weighted MTF for 28 mm: f2,8 0,77, f4 0,79, f8 0,80[br]

Here we see the 24mm/f2.8, 28mm/f2.8, and the 28-70mm/f2.8 lenses all show the same weighted MTF at f2.8: 0.77, and sharpness is very similar even at f8.[br]

However, in selecting a lens I am want to consider the distortions and the vignetting. http://www.photozone.de/result2.htm displays the the weighted results of a survey of photographers who own the listed lenses. And, yes people can exagerate, and yes perhaps some people responded to the survey may have less experience in spotting vignetting and distortions. People may even be blinded by the price they paid - unwilling to admit how bad a problem may be on an expensive lense he/she purchased.[br] The following information came from this survey:[br] 24mm F2.8:[br] Perf. wide open: good[br] Perf. stopped down: very good[br] Vignetting: little vignetting wide open[br] Distortion: little distortions[br] Color: Neutral[br] Flare: Some Flare[br] AF Speed: OK minus[br]

28mm F2.8:[br] Perf. wide open: good[br] Perf. stopped down: very good[br] Vignetting: significant plus wide open[br] Distortion: little distortions minus[br] Color: Neutral[br] Flare: Some Flare[br] AF Speed: Very Slow[br]

50mm F1.4:[br] Perf. wide open: good plus[br] Perf. stopped down: very good plus[br] Vignetting: little vignetting plus wide open[br] Distortion: little distortions plus[br] Color: Neutral[br] Flare: Some Flare[br] AF Speed: Fast[br]

28-70mm F2.8:[br] Perf. wide open (wide): very good[br] Perf. wide open (long): very good[br] Perf. stopped down (wide): very good plus[br] Perf. stopped down (long): very good plus[br] Vignetting (wide): little vignetting wide open[br] Vignetting (long): little vignetting plus wide open[br] Distortion (wide): little distortions[br] Distortion (long): little distortions plus[br] Color: Neutral[br] Flare: Some Flare Plus[br] AF Speed: Fast[br]

I prefer to trust photodo.com for sharpness, rather than rely on the survey. The survey are subjective people rating their own lenses - people who probably have different standards. However for the other criteria I am not aware of alternative sources for measured ratings. [br]

So, back to my original question.[br] Which is preferrable to own: the 28-70/f2.8 lens or the 50/f1.4 plus 24/f2.8 lenses?[br] Quality does not seem to be an issue. One only needs to make sure when using the 50/f1.4 lens to stop down to at least f2.8 to be close to the sharpness of the 28-70/f2.8 zoom lens at 40mm. The two primes have the obvious advantage of lower cost, less weight, and less bulk. With the 50mm one can shoot in lower light using F1.4 or F2.0 though with the trade off of less sharpness.[br]

This is an interesting dilema I have as I plan to be making the purchase(s) early next year.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), December 05, 2000.


P.S. Your mentioning getting the 50mm/F1.4 for indoor nonflash or maximizing flash...I think the 35mm/f2.0 lens may be superior in this role. The 35mm/F2.0 lens has a weighted MTF at F2.0 of 0.73. I like the idea that all my lenses will have a weighted MTF of over 0.70 regardless of f-stop used. Who wants to be constantly trying to remember: this lens I gotta get down to f4, that lens I gotta get down to f8, the other lens I gotta get down to f2? It's enough to worry about the proper shutter speed and depth of view.

Anyway, I have already started a thread about the pros and cons of 50mm/f1.4 versus 35mm/f2.

I also contacted Lim Chan Hin, and he is going to review the 35mm/f2 lens in the near future.

I am strongly leaning towards the 28-70/f2.8 zoom lens, along with another lens for flash-forbidden areas. A lens that is: cheaper, light, small, sharp, and faster. Looking at photodo.com's MTF measurements the 35mm/f2 at f2.0 has a weighted MTF of 0.73, which is the same as the 50mm/f1.4 at f2.0. You might conclude that therefore they are equal, however I wonder if the 35mm lens can use a slower shutter speed due to its smaller focal length? If yes, then the 35mm has an advantage here matching the 2 fstop advantage of the 50mm/f1.4 lens by providing 1 f-stop in aperature and 1 f-stop in shutter speed, while providing superior sharpness compared to the 50mm/f1.4 at f1.4.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), December 05, 2000.


I was just re-reading this thread to see what other responses you have had. Regarding your suspicion on quality, "I suspect the picture quality of the zoom may be a little better.":

From your lens test results I gather that, at 40mm on the zoom compared to the 50mmf1.4: the zoom has less quality than the prime at all apertures available to the zoom. This is what I'd expect comparing even a pro-zoom to a quality prime. The zoom is still in the very high quality bracket. The prime has wider apertures available, which have a trade-off of lower picture quality, but they are there when you need them.

I was similarly surprised, when reading the Canon Lens Work II book, to see MTF curves showing worse values for higher quality lenses. The results I was mistakenly comparing were each lens at its max aperture, which was much larger on the higher quality/specialist lenses. When looking at the f8 curve, the results were more consistent with my expectations.

My recommendation if you haven't decided: If you can afford/justify the 28-70 then get it. It's a great lens and satisfies your quality requirements. I have seen comments from people who have traded a similar bunch of primes for the zoom and were not dissapointed.

-- Paul McSweeney (paulmcs@clear.net.nz), December 05, 2000.



Paul, I think you do not understand my goal here. I suppose a studio photography only cares about which lens is sharpest at F8. But I am not looking for the sharpest lens at F8. I want a lens that I never have to even care about the f-stop except for depth of field issues. I never want to say: Oh darn I wish there was more light so I could have used F8 and had a really sharp photo. I look at a lens and ask "how sharp is it wide open? How sharp is it at each f-stop?" because I do not care how sharp it is at f8. I may never take any photos ever again if I have to insist on sufficient lighting to use f8.

Except for circumstances when I need to select a shutter speed to freeze the action, and except for circumstances when I need to select an f-stop for proper depth of field...except for these circumstances I want top quality in a fully automatic idiot mode - camera chooses every mode of operation: Auto Focus, Auto shutter speed selection, Auto aperature selection.

The 28-70/F2.8 never has a weighted MTF number below .70 which is something you can not say about the 50/F1.4 Thus in my book the 28- 70/F2.8 zoom is superior.

Of course if you take all your photos in a studio (or outside in bright sunlight) and thus always use f8 you will claim the 50/F1.4 is superior. However this is not the lighting circumstances I can count on encountering.

You may correctly claim that the 50/F1.4 at an aperature of F2.8 is superior to the 28-70/F2.8 at 40mm and F2.8, however I have no way to force the camera or the 50mm lens to NOT select F1.4 or F2.0 - I can't tell the camera "Use F2.8 or larger numeric aperature - or else don't take the picture". I will use the 50mm lens I will end up with many pictures taken at F1.4 and F2.0 with the lens's inherent inferior sharpness.

Now I can pay an engraver to write on the 50mm lens the words "On this 50mm lens stay at F2.8 or higher numerical aperature", and then use the lens when I have the light and the time to play around with it. Actually, the 50mm/F1.4 lens when used at F8 has a Weighted MTF of 0.86 and there is no lens in its price range that can perform better at F8. The 50mm/F1.8 is very close at 0.85 The 50mm/F2.5 at 0.86 Even my old 50mm/F1.8 FD lens is 0.85 at f8.

So Paul, in summary I am comparing lenses by examing the worst results the lens can do throughout the apperature range between wide open and f8. After recording the worst results each lens can possibly give, I then select the best lens. I look at the 28-70/F2.8 lens and say "Wow, regardless of aperature or focal length the worst this lens will deliver is a weighted MTF of 0.70, whereas this 50/F1.4 lens delivers at worst a weighted MTF of 0.58" When YOU look at the zoom lens you say "The best the zoom can do a weighted MTF of .83 at 40mm f8 which is not as good as the 50mm/f1.4 at f8"

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), December 05, 2000.


I have never push processed film before, but I am thinking it is better to use the 28-70/F2.8 zoom at F2.8 and push process the film 2 stops, rather than reduce the sharpness by using the 50mm/F1.4 at F1.4

I hear this works very well with the new Kodak Supra films.

Anyway, I was really trying to list the pros and cons between the 2 primes versus the zoom. At the beginning I assumed the quality issue was not worth investigating. But now that I have investigated it looks like the zoom is extremely close to the prime in sharpness at f8, and the zoom will prevent the possibility of nonsharp pictures that the prime can take at F1.4

I have read that some people get tired of the zoom lens's weight and trade it in for prime lenses. I bet that in the end I'll end up buying all 3 lenses and feeling guilty that I spent so much money.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), December 05, 2000.


Howard,

In one of your responses you say..." You may correctly claim that the 50/F1.4 at an aperature of F2.8 is superior to the 28-70/F2.8 at 40mm and F2.8, however I have no way to force the camera or the 50mm lens to NOT select F1.4 or F2.0 - I can't tell the camera "Use F2.8 or larger numeric aperature - or else don't take the picture"."...

That is what aperture priority is for. You select the aperture and the camera will select the shutterspeed. I use this all of the time, knowing my lens' best aperture for the situation, or when I want deep or narrow focus, (small or large f-stop). If you control the camera... it will do anything you want.

using program mode does not ensure the best results... only the easiest.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 05, 2000.


Given your further explanation about automatic use of the lens' worst aperture, and the lens test results, I would agree that the zoom would be the most suitable lens for you.

The f8 thing was just the data available in Lens Work II, i.e. they give MTF for max aperture and at f8 for each lens. Personally I'm a hobby photographer who generally prefers macro photograhy.

Regarding zoom vs primes pros and cons relating specifically to you: - The primes hold no advantage for larger max aperture if you're not going to use it. - The primes hold no advantage if the weight of the zoom is not a problem (it's not *that* heavy, and I'm small). - The primes hold no advantage regarding image quality as discussed. - The zoom has the advantage of variable focal length. - Flare? Didn't bother to look at the results. - The primes DO have the advantage of closer focusing distance.

So, it looks like the zoom would suit you best. To quote myself from above: "If you can afford(/justify) the 28-70 then get it.". I wish you the best for your decision, and hope you're satisfied with your choice.

-- Paul McSweeney (paulmcs@clear.net.nz), December 06, 2000.


my 50mm 1.4 will get pictures that cannot be taken by the 28-80/2.8. its two full stops faster than the zoom. who cares if i can't resolve every letter on a newspaper page 20 feet away--at least i got the shot. oh damn, my zoom is so sharp at 2.8 but i can't take a picture this time, i'll have to wait for that sunny f16 light that will show off the true resolution of my pro zoom. jeez howard, get a grip. the zoom is great i'm sure--it will deliver professional results, but so will prime lenses. buy what you need to do the job and quit analyzing mtf curves til you're blue in the head.

-- chucklestheclown (chuckles@aol.com), January 08, 2001.

Well chuck, you are right. If 1.4 lets you take the shot, then it's better than not taking it at all.

But if I'm going to drop $3000 on a new canon EOS system with L lenses, then I want my pictures to look better than my old Canon AE1P system. And I don't want to be memorizing what F-stops to not use if I want such a quality improvement.

Recently I've been thinking that it will all be a waste of money. Probably only a MF camera will make a large noticable improvement, as other amateur photographers who have recently critiqued the photos I don't like - they are telling me it is film grain. I thought I wasn't focusing accurately enough, or my lenses are not high enough quality. I'm starting to think good photos can only be portraits in 35mm. I'm going to try some of that Kodak Supra 400 and see what that looks like.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), January 08, 2001.


I believe that one important point has not been addressed thus far: closest focusing distance. The zoom focuses down to 50cm, the 24 2.8 focuses down to 25cm, and the 50 1.4 focuses down to 45cm (not a big difference here). If you plan to do landscape photos, you will soon learn that to effectively use a 24mm lens, you will need to focus from 25cm to infinity. Fast zooms are indeed optically up to prime quality (John Shaw uses them nowadays), but they are slow lenses. You do not see photogs using a 2.8 zoom without flash; however, they provide a bright viewfinder and convenience to compose quickly in tight spaces. The only zoom that focuses almost as close as a wide- angle prime is the AFS Nikkor 17-35 (30cm), or the AFD-ED 18-35 (33cm). If you want to do landscape photography and/or photos without flash and without a tripod, you will need a fast prime. I suggest you look into the 35 1.4 lens too.

-- Paulo Bizarro (pbizarro@cggp.pt), January 11, 2001.

Howard-- If you can't take pictures with 35mm that people like, do you really think that you are going to have better pictures if you move up to medium or large format? Hell no. You are simply going to have bigger crappy pictures. You need to spend more time learning good technique and less time asking theoretical lens quality questions.

-- chuckles (chucklestheclown@aol.com), February 11, 2001.

I find that the pictures I hate the most are taken at f1.4 or f2.0 Even a tripod and remote shutter release doesn't help.

Now, is this because of the softness of lenses when wide open? Or is this because I can't focus perfectly and need the improved depth of field that a F8 fstop gives? However, I'm not going to dump over $3000 into an EOS AF system if I'm not sure it is going to help.

Even the pictures I do like - don't look good in 8X10s. I've abandoned Kodak Gold 200 film in search of better films.

I've purchased genuine Canon used prime lenses for my FD system, I always use a tripod now, and I'm trying Kodak Supra 800, Supra 400, and Fugi Reala 100 films (in that order). In case you are wondering, I find the grain in the Supra 800 5X7s looks a worse than the Gold 200. This is what Kodak's Grain Index predicted. Now I've got Supra 400 in the camera which should be a improvement over Gold 200.

Anyway, in the end I'll probably just have to buy an expensive medium format system, or just be happy with what I've got along with its limitations. Those medium format SLR cameras are soooo expensive, that I'll probably just keep using 35mm, always using a tripod, F4 or F8 whenever possible, and the best film, and take some consolance that relatives seem to like even the pictures I find disapointing.

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), February 11, 2001.


I'd like to throw my two cents into this discussion. It seems to me that we are talking about the difference between several primes which are of excellent quality, and a zoom which is of excellent quality. Forget about the numbers and ratings given on these web sites. The bottom line is that these are excellent lenses. All of them. None is considered even mediocre.

That being said, go with the 28-70 f/2.8L. Why? Because it does it all! That's why. So what if it's "heavy". How many lenses out there can boast about having the quality and flexibility of this lens. If it were lighter photographers would be complaining that it's "built weak, and fragile"!

I own the 28-70 and it's GREAT. One lens for many photographic situations. Where with the primes you have several lenses for several situations.

The weight is no big deal once you get used to the fact that you have a lens that stays on the camera for most situations. LESS SHOTS ARE MISSED....GUARANTEED...!

-- J.R. (westboundimages@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ