Jess Lee wrote: 28-135 is usable but slow
> and lacking great optical qualities.
>
> Jess Lee
>
> http://www.jessleephotos.com
>
Have you used the 28-135 IS? It seems pretty darned sharp to me, less
distortion than the 28-105, which I have also used. If the long tele
consumer version would be upgraded, that would be a more useful
addition, IMHO. The biggest advantage of a 70-200 IS f2.8 would be it's
ability to be used with a 2x teleconverter, but the combo would put it
up in the price range of the 100-400 IS, and it wouldn't be any faster.
And if you've seen the size of the glass on the 28-135, 72mm, to
maintain a 3.5-5.6 speed with IS, can you imagine the size of a 70-200
IS 2.8??
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
