-----Original Message-----
From: Gabriel Massip Fons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I agree, I think 28-135 is more interesting as THE travel lens. But I'd
like it to be 24-120 (for
>example, but it should have similar optical quality), since 28 can be
somewhat short.
I just got back from Victoria, BC Canada and took the Mini Trekker (with
modules attached) filled with enough stuff to put me in good shape for a
months sojourn along the Amazon, but found I used the 28-135 and 100-400
almost exclusively. The latter, to isolate some of the beautiful
architecture you find in that city and some shots from the ferry over and
back.
The 28-135 is a very capable lens for the great majority of the shooting
situations I ran into. And while I had a 28-70 L with me, the 28-135 did
nicely in low light and those times when flash wasn't allowed, or that
wasn't the effect I wanted, or I was just not inclined to mount the flash
unit.
I was thinking though, if I did a lot more urban shooting, what a dream the
35-350 L would be. To a large extent, I could have just substituted a fanny
pack for the Mini Trekker, and taken the one 35-350.
Gary Russell
Olympia, Washington - USA
PS...a plug for the LowePro Mini Trekker. This was also the first time I've
carried the Mini Trekker for that many straight hours...it's an absolute
dream in the way it distributes the weight. In fact, the only time I really
noticed that I was packing a very heavy load was when I took it off, or put
it on.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
