Just to add my humble two cents here, but I have the 28-135IS and find it
exceptionally sharp. I often wonder why I bother taking along my 85 1.8 and
50 1.8 because the 28-135 is so sharp and versitile. There are cases where
faster is obviously better, but usually in the 28-135 range, I'm not
shooting sports or wildlife, and for landscapes I want a large depth of
field anyway. For portraits, you may look for something like the 70-200
2.8, or a 100/135 2 but the 28-135 will works for most candid's where I'm
not trying to limit my depth of field. For whomever it was that started
this thread critizing the 28-135, are you sure it wasn't your technique (no
offense intended, but IS on a tripod or something to that affect)? If you
had good technique and got lousy results, you must have gotten a lemon of a
lens. For those considering whether or not to buy the 28-135IS, it is a
great lense with excellent sharpness and contrast.
Cheers, JD
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
