Herman 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
>
>
The 28-105 is a very good lens for the price, the 28-135 is
incrementally better, and has IS, but is a couple of hundred $ more.
I've heard some really great things about the Sigma 17-35, and of course
it is WAY less expensive than the Canon L equivalent. If I can ever
unload my model train collection, I'm going to buy the Sigma and the
Canon 100-400L to augment my 28-135IS.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
