BlueSky wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Thanks for the replies. I'm s*ubscribed to the digest format, so please
> pardon my reply in this format as well.
>
> >>>George wrote:
> While prime lenses are a good option as far as optics go, there are some
> zooms out there, like Tokina 28-80/2.8 AT-X pro, and Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX that
> will cost about half of Canon 28-70L and will still produce results that are
> as good as Canon L lens.
> <<<
>
> I was looking thru your Scotland photos, and they look stunning! Some
> of the photos really do show the crispness I noted in the 28-70L. While it
> may not be as awesome as the L lens (or maybe not, can't tell yet), it sure
> is worlds apart from my EF28-105. I will certainly check them out, though
> my only concern is getting one which works on my EOS 30.
Be careful here. While I have no doubt Georges Scotland photos look
stunning, you cannot really compare lenses based on relatively low
resolution web images. They may have gone through color correction,
contrast enhancement, sharpening or whatever. Perfectly ok to do so,
but the post processing has likely more influence on the final
image than the quite subtle differences in lens quality. So, while
the Tokina and Sigma lenses above *may* be the same quality as the
Canon, low res web images are not a reliable way to verify this.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
