Alex Zabrovsky wrote:
>
> Any opinions about this lens ?
> How would you rate it against 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM ?
>
> Photodo has quite rave rating of one giving 3.5 mark (very high-almost
> approaching pro glass rank performance), however the distortions seem
>to be at high level.
> What about flare control ?
> Generally, would you be given the choice of 28-105/3.5-4.5 and
> 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS what would you take (given similar price range of
> both, used in good shape).
>
> Photozone isn't very optimistic giving very conservative rating to
this lens outlining heavy flare and heavy distortions inherent to this
glass.
>
> Your comments ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex,
I have used this lens quite exensively. When it first came out it
was "the" lens that made me decide to switch to Canon EOS.
Reason was Image Stablization allows me to hold it at slower speeds.
The other reason was having 135mm for portraits. Last, the close up
capability was ideal to avoid close focusing distance limitation inherent
with other lenses.
I have used this lens everywhere and taken portraits that were every bit
as good as those with my 135mm F2L. Yes, it does not say L but
it is a darn good piece of glass. Flare? yes, use a hood. Distortions?
A bit more than some pricey glass at the wide end but not too much.
The only downside is that it is a bit larger than the 28-105, but that's
not a big deal when you consider it can replace a 135mm as well.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
