At 10:24 AM 5/2/2001 -0700, you 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!!
Hi Doug:
I own both lenses...I primarily use the 28-135 on my EOS 3 and 1n and my
wife uses the 28-105 on her Rebel 2000. There is not a lot of difference in
sharpness between the two lenses, although I think the 28-135 has a slight
edge. (See Dave Herzstein's excellent comparison:
http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/lenstest/lenstest.html).
I find the 28-135 to be almost the perfect vacation lens...the IS works
very well and is extremely useful when I cannot or do not want to carry a
tripod. If you are shooting landscapes and architecture and using a tripod,
this feature is of course of very little value to you. But for use without
a tripod, I find I can often get photos that I would not be able to get
with the other lens.
Advantages of 28-135:
1. Slightly sharper
2. IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Advantages of 28-105
1. Smaller and lighter
2. Cheaper
3. Smaller and cheaper filters.
For me, IS is the deciding feature and I love the 28-135. But only you can
weigh the pluses and minuses and of each lens and decide which is right for
you!
--Mike
~~ Michael Wood
~~ San Leandro, CA USA
~~ mwood at mykoweb dot com
~~ http://www.mykoweb.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
