At 12:42 PM 5/27/01 -0500, you wrote:
>JimD wrote:
> >
> > Ken's perspective has me thinking that the 28-70 is enough
> > better than the 28-105 that the 28-70 may be the right step
> > to take at this time.
> > The comparison on Ian Porteous' site still gives me
> > pause though.
> > http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Falls/6122/test/test2/lens.html
> > -JimD
>
>
>
>If I were you, I would hold off on the 28-70. It is a great lens, and I
>love mine, but if you're happy with your 28-105, and you tend to use it
>at middle apertures or high apertures, then I would skip the 28-70. If,
>however, you find yourself constantly using the 28-105 wide open, then
>the 28-70 might be a good choice, as it offers a wider max f/stop and is
>quite sharp on the wide end.
>
>One reason I would hold off on the 28-70 is that it is an old lens, and
>you never know when it is going to be replaced, perhaps with an IS
>version. And of course, once it is replaced, that will drive down the
>value on the old one.
>
>Still, I wouldn't trade my 28-70 for the world. But I probably use my
>100 macro more--and it makes a great medium speed portrait lens.
>
>Mike
Something akin to the 28-70 F2.8 L with image stabilization
would be very enticing. Does anyone know if Canon
plans to propagate the IS technology to the L series zooms?
-JimD
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
