On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Alex Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>talking about 3D quality, I guess most of the member here got the >point. Obviously, this is for a general feeling produced by the optics, >kind of >"live" picture, not the literal 3D of course. I wonder you didn't get >the point and rasied up with sarcasm not even bothering to try >personally first what you're bashing. >I would now likely to start flaming about MkII, 500/4IS and others, no >matter that I never tried these and even never had a chance to see personally... I guess I'm not making myself clear then. The reason I'm not buying a 24-70L is the short zoom range, no IS, and only slightly better optics which is lost handholding. Not to mention that I shoot mostly at f8 anyway. You guys can rave all you want about these magical L qualities, and frankly if I spent that much on a lens I'd be convinced too. But I'll get back to you about my satisfaction with my new 28-135 when it comes and I get to try it out. I've seen a lot of really awesome 'live', 3d' type photos that were taken with this 'sleeper' lens. -- 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 ***********************************************************
