Thomas Bantel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part:
> First, the 28-105 is NOT an IS lens, there is a 28-135 IS, though.
> I own all of the three lenses in question (28-70L, 28-105, 28-135IS).
> Although I didn't do an even semi scientific comparison test, my
> *subjective* opinion is, that the 28-70L is clearly the best of them.
> Inifinitely better at f/2.8 of course, way better at f/3.5 (which is
> the widest for the two others, still noticeably better - or should I
> say different(?) at f/8. MTF values do not show significant
> differences at f/8, IMHO. But I have the (subjective) feeling it has
> a different "look", don't know what it really is, sharpness, contrast,
> color rendition, the more effective lens hood ..., or just my wish it
> *should* be better for its higher price ;-)
For those who haven't seen it, Dave Herzstein has a page with head to head
tests of the Canon EF 28-105, EF 28-135 IS EF 28-70 L, and 70-200 L with
some detail photos.
http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/lenstest/lenstest.html
Bill Jameson
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
