Hi Jim, Karen, list, Before you ask, YES, I have both 24-70 L and 28-135 IS and use both frequently!
The 24-70 L basically lives on my camera; I use it for 75% of my shots. I love the brightness in the viewfinder (compared to other zooms, not talking about primes), and the lens delivers very sharp and accurately coloured pictures, even wide open. My 28-135 IS gets used when I want to travel light and don't want to bring both the 24-70 L and the 70-200 L IS. Sorry to bring a 3rd lens into the story, but that's my main reason for me to use the 28-135 IS. Stopped down, the 28-135 can produce fine pictures, but wide open they are not as sharp as the 24-70 L (wide open, left aside stopped down to the same aperture). Also, it tends to be a little warmer than the 24-70 L. And no (Peter ;-), I'm not trying to justify the expense of the L glass, it's simply my experience! The difference in lenses cannot only be judged by MTF charts. You'll have to try both lenses and compare end results. Not just huge magnifications of small areas, but also look at the picture as a whole (is it what you expected, is it pleasing)! What I'm missing in the whole discussion however is the actual usability of IS! IS is basically designed for use on tele lenses. Considering the speed/focal length rule (1/60 sec for 60mm), you simply don't need it on shorter lenses. Especially below 50mm, you'll find camera shake won't be the main cause for blur - subject movement is! This I think is the reason why there is no 70mm zoom with IS! Neither is there an immediate need for a tripod, unless you're going for very long exposures. Another thing we are forgetting is AF! You'll find an f/2.8 lens better capable for fast AF than f/5.6. The 28-135 IS starts "low-light-hunting" much sooner than the 24-70 L, simply because the 24-70 L lets through more light to the AF sensors in the camera. For AF, a good prime is of course even better ;-) Jim, I think you'll like the 28-135 IS for what it is. I know you are aware of L glass quality as you have a 100-400 L IS. So surely you'll prefer the better build quality. But the range of the 24-70 L is indeed quite limited compared to the 28-135 IS. So if you want a light lens with a sensible range, and don't mind about a little(!) softness, the 28-135 IS is a bargain! I'm looking forward to seeing your tests on the web... Cheers, Stefan * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
