Vesa Perala wrote:
> So I've been thinking of buying a 28-70(80)/2.8 zoom but I'm not
> sure if I would still need the 28-135 for the times there is more
> light.
I should think that would depend on how often you find yourself at the long end
of the 28-135. If you are there a lot, then the 100/2 wouldn't be long enough.
But if you rarely go past 100 mm using the 28-135, then the 100 could be a good
option. Since you already have one, you probably have a good idea of whether it
would be a suitable substitute for the 28-135. As for the 28-70/2.8L: you
certainly won't be disappointed by its optics or AF performance, but it is
bulky, heavy, and expensive, so you need to decide how important these factors
are in the decision-making process. Beyond that, I think you will find the Canon
lens to be more robust than its Tokina and Sigma counterparts, so if your
equipment gets a lot of use, some of it not so gentle, then that might be a
consideration as well.
What I find in my own use is that I often choose the 85/1.8 instead of the
28-70, but I think if I had the 100/2 rather than the 85/1.8 I would be more
likely to carry the 100 in addition to the 28-70 rather than in place of it.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
