On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:00:25 +0900, Karen Nakamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
> >If you compare an f/2.8 lens at f/4 against an f/4 lens at f/4, >you'll see the difference. Even at f/8 which is the point at which >lenses tend to approach each other, the L is superior to the IS at >all focal lengths. Wrong, sorry. See Photodo. >Anyway, it seems like you're speaking from zero personal experience >(except "friends" and "pros") so there's really no point in >discussing this any further. Because at f/2.8, the L lens is much >superior to the IS. :-) It sounds like you're speaking from L lens lust :-) But you are WRONG. You really should check the Photodo rating of these two lenses side by side. It's a pity though they couldn't rate the 28-70 above 70mm :-) >Furthermore, the IS lens suffers from almost >twice as much distortion than the L lens. At the wide lens, the IS >has more than twice the distortion. Note that the new 24-70 has even >less distortion. You are right of course about distortion, but that's not usually an issue for me. Hey, you gotta get something extra for all that cash. -- 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 ***********************************************************
