Frederico Samarane wrote:
>
> ----- 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)
>
I know you were, but the participant above my post was comparing the
28=135 unfavorably to the 28-80. I'm not sure where that post was
pertinent, I thought maybe I lost the thread. I have no argument with
what you said.
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
