--- Doug Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, my big question in all of this is:
> For an amateur photographer who never plans to go
> pro (and would invest in
> some L's if I did), is the difference between the
> 28-105 and 28-135 in terms
> of quality and sharpness worth the added price of
> the lens AND filters? I
> shoot mainly landscapes and architecture so I don't
> know that the IS would
> be of that much use to me. Thanks in advance for
> any advice!!
I can't tell you about the optical difference of the
two lenses. Assuming the optical quality is the same
the question for me would boil down to if I am using a
tripod or not (well, I would). If you do use a tripod
there is not much sense in buying the IS version.
Nevertheless, if you do not use a tripod then the IS
version would be a good investement. For landscape you
often will use small apartures and a polarizer. Both
will increase your exposure time. Here the IS lens
will be a big advantage. With a non-IS lens you have
to chose faster film and/or get less-then-ideal
sharpness.
Finally, instead of bying two filter sets you can buy
the bigger filter and a step-down (or up?) ring. Or
use the cokin filter holder with a cokin (or other
manufacturer) filter.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
