On Tuesday August 10 2004 1:27 pm, Scott Laird wrote: > On Aug 10, 2004, at 7:40 AM, James B.Davis wrote: > >> 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 :-) > > FWIW, I had a 28-135 IS and a 85/1.8 as my primary lenses on my D60 for > a while. I sold the 28-135 after I realized that *every one* of my > favorite shots had come from the 85/1.8. I replaced the 28-135 with a > 24-70L, and now I never use the 85/1.8. > > IS is nice, but it works better when it's attached to good glass. > > YMMV, and maybe I had a particularly bad sample, but I'm a lot happier > with the 24-70. Most of the time, I'd rather have the 4mm at the wide > end then the 65mm at the long end.
Hang onto the 85mm, Scott, as you may in the future need to or want to do high quality portraits. Even thought the 100mm macro is great for that, and so is the 24-70L, the 85mm IS THE portrait lens!! The BEST 3 made are: Canon, Nikon, and Minolta. Fred 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 ***********************************************************
