[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> Well, as we all know - these things are matter of opinion. I don't have Canon
> 28-70L lens, but I have Canon 20-35L and Canon 80-200L and my Tokina
> 28-80/2.8AT-X pro produces results of the same quality - or I can't tell the
> difference on my slides when it comes to sharpness and contrast between all
> the above lenses.
> I think that Zimmy had a bad lens. there was a batch of these bad Tokinas out
> there - I read some things on the internet some place. But I think that most
> of them are good. These things happen to all things - remember EOS 3 problem
> when they first came out - underexposure deal.
> So all I can attest to is my Tokina. There are lots of people here, on the
> list even, that are happy with older Tokina - 28-70 2.6-2.8 AT-X pro, which
> is a good lens as well.
> George
Thanks George,
What under exposure deal? There was no under exposure. Funny how you
couldn't buy a 3 for a while and then when you could, nobody complained
about underexposure any more..... ;-)
Yes, Zimmy may have had a bad one. I know that sometimes happens.
Bob
--
//////
( 0 0 )
-73 de Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Everybody has a photographic memory. Some just don't have any film.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
