> I am in the market to buy a new lens, covering the 24-80 (or
> 105) range to
> replace the 28-80 USM (crappy) lens. I am looking for good
> image quality. It
Why is the 28-80 crappy? Is it because you looked at your slides (which
were shot using a rock steady tripod and focused perfectly of course)
through a Leica/Zeiss 8x loupe and exclaimed "My God! These slides are
soft!" or was it like me, who read all the internet posts telling you how
crappy the lens was so you decided to get a better one.
Given how many shots im selling and how many photos im shooting, I probably
would have saved alot of money by keeping the 'crappy' lens. I've since
started shooting M & LF, trading in half my EOS gear in the process. I lost
a whole lot on the transaction (I bought all my EOS stuff new). I doubt any
editor would have told me "That 28-80 that your using is crap, get a better
lens!". In fact, most editors (and almost any person vieweing your photos,
with the exception of another photographer) wont care what it was shot with.
If you shoot through a glass coke bottle and get a sharp, well composed and
interesting photo it wouldn't matter.
Also, if you have this problem now with the 28-80, whats to say that the
28-105, 28-135 (etc) will solve the quality issue? You will then want to
28-70/2.8L and wont be happy till you own one. You will probably ignore
this advice (like I did) and get the new lens anyway, thinking it will
improve your photos to the quality of an experienced pro. Unfortunately,
mine didn't - I hope you have better success.
All im saying is before you hand the money over for the 'better quality'
lens, ask yourself why. I didn't, and I reget wasting the money I have
(I've spend nearly AUD$40,000 in the last 12 months on photo gear).
- Stuart.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
