Bill Jameson wrote:
>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.
Thanks for the link. I think comparison on flat surface such as paper on
the wall might not be enough to show overall quality comparison - but then
again, what do I know. :) Maybe some more tests that'll show chromatic
correction, color rendition, and other characteristics of lens will
encourage better appreciation of quality optics.
Henry Posner wrote:
>Ahhh, The fallacy of the undistributed middle. It says no such thing. It
>says that color saturation and contrast are improved by the use of lens
>hoods, and that IMHO use of a hood is AT LEAST as important as the use of
>"L" or "ED" or "APO" glass. By the same token, my experience is that an
>image taken with the best quality lenses that's as little as one stop
>underexposed will suffer by comparison to a properly exposed image taken
>with any decent (not dreck) non "L" type lens.
FWIW, my EW63-II is on order (it takes 3 weeks to get anything from the
local Canon). I'll make some more comparisons and would really like to see
the value of using the hood. I take 90% of my shots in
the shade, hence never thought lens hood is important, I would love to proof
myself damned wrong.
Thanks,
BlueSky
PS: I wish the list-server will automatically identify what exactly caused
my message to bounce back.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
