Hi,
It's actually 28-135 IS, and it's not bad at all, in my opinion.
I use it along with my 100-400 L lens, and I'm happy with both.
Always use the lens hood, though...
Pierre
At 15:03 4/17/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Unfortunately I couldn't follow the beginning of the discussion, but I also
>have a question with regards to lens quality.
>
>I am planning to buy a 100-400 USM IS lens, and need something shorter as
>well. Somebody sugested the 28 - 105 IS, but I am concerned about the
>optical quality of such a lens. How bad is it realy (concerning the comment
>below). At the moment I shoot with a 28-85 "prosumer" lens from the other
>professional brand in the market place. This is regarded as one of their
>better prosumer lenses, but I am not happy with the optical quality at all,
>compared to the quality I get from the 300f4 which is realy outstanding in
>my opinion.
>
> I won't be able to afford the 28-70L or the 17-35L? I realy do not want to
>buy something that I would not be happy about either. I would favour a lens
>with a wider angle, something in the 24-50mm range or even wider. Are there
>any suggestions? I would prefer a zoom, but might have to settle for a prime
>as a substitute until there is enough money available for a proper zoom
>lens.
>
>Thanks in advance
>Herman
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
