Chip Louie wrote (edited):
I'd suggest the same lens EF 28-105 3.5/4.5 compact, light and as you
mention cheap. The 28-105 is really the only choice if you want reasonably
sharp images without needing to use 400 speed film. The other consumer zoom
lenses in this focal range (and longer), are all cheaply made and fuzzy
unless stopped down pretty far. You can add fast film to overcome camera
shake from the slow lens speed but you'll still be stuck with soft fuzzy
images.
While the EF 28-135 3.5/5.6IS may look good on paper the lens is rather slow
and surprisingly soft at the long end but of course Canon added IS to
overcome buyers' resistance to expensive, fuzzy short tele zooms!
Without a nice wide lens you'll miss a lot of opportunities........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Chip,
I have the 28-135mm IS and at 135mm mine is sharp. Yes, not as sharp as my
135F2L but very good nonetheless.
If a lens looks good on paper chances are the results it delivers look good
too. If you have the 28-135mm and your is soft you have a lemon. The
28-135mm lens is sharper at widest apertures compared to the 28-105mm at all
focal lengths.
The IS provides the user the ability to shoot sans tripod at slower shutter
speeds plus you gain DOF with slower film for sharper images. All tests I
have seen show the 28-135mm to be a better performer than the 28-105mm. Now
I am not saying the 28-105mm is a slouch so please do not read that, just
that the 28-135mm is far from soft and fuzzy as you describe.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
