----- Original Message -----
From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Comments sought on 28-70 3.5-4.5 II
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Ken,
> > I am referring to ordinary tourist type photos, and tripod mounted team
type
> > shops, all pictures taken under a variety of situations, the 28-135IS
does
> > not match the same genre of pictures taken with my 28-80 3.5-4.5USM.
When I
> > say do not match, and this is purely my own generalization of looking at
3.5
> > x 5 inch photos. The pictures are not as sharp (ie they look a bit fuzzy
& if
> > you use a loupe I notice a lack of minute detail which I attribute to
the bit
> > fuzzy appearance). The contrast that I refer to is akin to a picture
taken by
> > an "L" lens, the colors jump out at you, well they don't even wiggle
with
> > this one.
> > Hey this is my opinion but I have a shoebox (workboots) that is filled
with
> > snapshots of a recent visit to Disney that I regret I took only the
28-135IS
> > with me.
> > I suggest you borrow the lens from someone and look for yourself before
> > buying. If you are around RI, please contact me and I'll gladly let you
use
> > it.
> > Regards,
> > George Smith
>
> Sometimes I wonder what standards are used. I have the 28-135IS, my
> wife has the 28-80 and my cousin has the 28-105USM, so I have direct
> experience of all these lenses. The 28-135 that I have is clearly
> superior to either of the others in sharpness, contrast and distortion.
> My wife found the 28-80 so poor (sharpness) that she substituted a Sigma
> 28-105 f2.8-4 for it, and she shoots mostly IR.
> This is one I shot with the 28-135:
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/streetcardiner.htm
> I've shot color with this lens, admittedly not as much as I have b&w,
> and the color rendition seems to be fine.
> What film are you using, and are you using the tripod with the IS on?
> I'm sorry if this start a flame war, but I, personally, don't believe
> that you can see the difference in a 3 1/2 x 5 image, and I think it
> does a disservice to this mailing list to make statements like that! If
> the performance of your lens is as poor as you say, you should have
> taken it back to your dealer to be replaced by another example. There
> is something obviously wrong with it. The alternative is that there are
> always people who fly in the face of a commonly held opinion just so
> they can stand out in a crowd.
> Skip
>
>
> --
> Shadowcatcher Imagery
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Im talkink about the EF 28-70 3.5-4.5 II and not about the 28-80.
Fred
Frederico Samarane
Belo Horizonte - MG
30.575-100
Brazil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (palm)
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
