>James B.Davis wrote
>
> 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.
> . . . . . . . . . . 
>You people were right about one thing with the 28-135. The IS sucks
>:-) But it is very sharp and a really fun lens to shoot with due to
>the zoom range and the ergonomics of it.

I own both the 28-135 and the 24-70L, and used to own the 28-70L.  There
is no question that you will get some excellent pictures with your new
28-135.  This used to be my primary lens and I was happy with the
results I got.  Since I got the 24-70, however, that is almost always my
lens of choice over the 28-135.  

The features of the 'L' lens are not "magical" at all.  They are very
real world.  Regardless of what f-stop you shoot at, an F2.8 vs. F5.6
lens means the viewfinder is 2 stops brighter.  I find this allows me to
judge focus and compose the shot better and faster.

Having 2 extra stops to work with allows greater creative control over
DOF and shutter speed.  I can blur backgrounds in circumstances where
that's just not possible with an f5.6 lens.  I can use a 2 stop
polarizing filter and still see what I'm doing.  The extra 4mm at the
wide angle end can make a big difference, and helps on digital bodies
with multipliers.

The 24-70's AF speed is close to magical, and it works surprisingly well
in many low light situations.  Combine this with the brighter
viewfinder, and it means I will capture some rapidly changing moments
that I might not get, or get as well, with the 28-135.  This is
particularly true under low light conditions where f2.8 makes the
difference between being able to get the shot at a reasonable shutter
speed and ISO or not.  

Some of my favorite travel pictures are street shots on dark rainy days.
Add the 24-70's weather sealing to the above features, use it with a
weather sealed body, and it makes this kind of shooting very safe and
practical.

This is not to say that I couldn't, and didn't, do this kind of shooting
when the 28-135 was my only lens in this range.  With the 24-70, though,
AF is faster and more reliable, subject movement isn't as big a problem,
I can shoot at lower ISOs for higher resolution, and I take less chance
of rain damaging my gear.

So, the bottom line is that using the 24-70L I can shoot more with
greater creative control, and get a higher percentage of keepers under
the variety of situations that I tend to shoot in.  In my book, that's
the real criteria for lens selection, and it is totally dependent on
your shooting style and circumstances.   

My best choice, however, is not necessarily your best choice.  If you
are shooting mostly at f8, in well lit conditions in reasonable weather,
and are more concerned about the long end of the lens than wide angle,
the difference between the 28-135 and 24-70L is not going to be as
significant as it is for me and some others on this list.  You'll pay
less for the lens, travel lighter, and get some shots at 135mm that I
may not because I don't have time to switch to a longer lens.

Others evaluating these lenses need to weigh them against their own
shooting environment, and take all of these factors into account.  You
can argue the optics and subjective quality perceptions all day long,
but these other features are very real and can make a big difference in
whether the extra cost of the L glass is worth it for the individual
photographer.

Paul Wasserman
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

Reply via email to