>Have you thought about the 28-70 or 24-70mm f/2.8 L lenses?
I have the 28-135 IS but was a bit disappointed in its softness. I got a 28-70mm L lens for a reasonably good price and am happy/er.
It might be sharper on a tripod, but it won't be sharper handheld. I don't like tripods :-) Not to mention it's zoom range is not so great and it's much heavier.
Are you speaking from personal experience? I've found the 28-135 is only sharp when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. At that point, it's more than 3 stops slower than the L lens. And even though the IS helps prevent blur on the part of the photographer, it doesn't help with blur on the part of the subjects.
Anyway, having both I'm happier with the 28-70.
>I also just bought a 16-35mm f/2.8 L lens and am excited to test it >out on my 10D.
Also a nice lens, but a tripod is also needed. And it's not wide enough for real wide angle. And again, a heavy lens.
Huh??? Are you speaking from experience? Not wide enough for a real wide? It needs a tripod? I can only imagine that you've never used it. If you've used a wider rectilinear zoom w/ f2.8, I'd like to hear about it.
KN
-- Karen Nakamura http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
