Also, there is an interesting comparison on Ian Porteous's www site
and the 28 - 105 does ok:
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Falls/6122/test/test2/lens.html
-JimD
At 09:55 AM 4/18/01 -0400, you wrote:
>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
***********************************************************
