On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:30:20 +0100 (BST), "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>I think you might be a little disappointed. I know I was. In good light where >you can stop it down to f/8 and upwards it's not bad, but you'll get good >pictures from a non IS lens then and far better from a good lens like the >24-70l. You'll most likely be wanting the IS in lower light situations where >you will also more likely be using it wider, that is where it will >disappoint, it's soft and just doesn't produce pleasing results IMO. It's >also older generation IS so doesn't compare to the IS on newer lenses. I'd >sooner have a faster lens with better image quality than medicore IS and >so-so image quality. I just looked at Photodo's ratings of the 28-70 and the 28-135 side by side. In the mid range of focal lengths, there is literally no difference in the sharpness of the two. I know many of you will challenge this, but that's what it says. The former is a bit sharper at 70, but then again it doesn't go to 135, which is where the later's rating falls down a bit. I think many people are victims of hype about this lens. I have heard plenty of Pros who use the 28-135 all the time. You can't compare a non IS lens hand held to an IS lens, regardless of the generation. Each to their own but I'm going to see for myself. According to Photodo, this lens is very highly rated. Again, the only place you will find the 28-70L sharper is on a tripod at 'some' focal lengths and apertures. -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com/ Standard Poodles for fun BMW motorcycle for pleasure * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
