On Tuesday August 10 2004 7:03 am, James B.Davis wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:40:54 +0900, Karen Nakamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote/replied to: > >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.
Jim, I'd be pleased to send you a few shots I've taken with my 24-70L with NO tripod nor monopod!! It hand holds VERY well, unlike the Sigma. > >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. Again, I've used a fellow pro's, and it hand-holds nicely. > Plus, both those lenses are not only very heavy, but very expensive. Ya gets what ya pays for. > I've certainly considered all lenses, I just love IS. So do I, but the 24-70L is GREAT without it. Fred -- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on." * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
