It depends on your criteria. Many photogs I have met take a digital image and then crop a tiny piece of that image and blow it up for comparison. While this will show one lens sharper than the other, so what! This is far from real world. My 28-135mm is great. Maybe not as tack sharp as a 24-70mm F2.8L (have they fixed the focus ring coming apart yet?), but it works for me and I typically go to 8x10 and on occasion 11x14. Sharp, clear and that is all I care about.
True. My criteria also includes: tough as all hell. I often shoot in less than clean places and often do not have the luxury of babying my equipment. That's one of the main reasons why I've stepped up to L lenses. They're water-resistant to rain. They don't suck in dirt. And the front element does not extend dangerously forward where they're asking to be knocked about. Those criteria are also very important.
I have the IS and the L. The IS is a nice walk-about and light-travel lens. But the IS only partially compensates for its darkness. And at the speeds that I start to get worried about handholdability at the focal length (1/60, 1/30, 1/15), subject motion also becomes a problem. Also, I for one *like* being able to control my DOF and it's hard to do so when you're starting out at f/4.
I'm not bashing the IS, it's a fine lens. It's also not an 'L' lens for many reasons.
Karen
-- Karen Nakamura http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
