At 20:42 5/30/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>I have looked to all internet pages I could find and came up with two lenses
>that could fulfill my wish, the 28-105 USM or the 28-135 IS USM. As the
>price difference (� Hfl 500 ~ $200) is known to you guys, I have a few
>questions.
>
>1) Is this difference worth the IS?
Yes. I had the 28-105, sold it and bought the 28-135 IS. Very happy with
IS. I use it all the time. It really makes a difference handheld.
>2) Is it problematic that the aperture of the 28-135 changes much faster
>(40mm f4.0; 50mm f4.5; 85mm f5.6) than the 28-105 (40mm f4.0; 80mm f4.5)
You won't notice.
>3) Are filters (UV, Polarizer) so much more expensive for an 72 (28-135)
>than an 58 mm mount?
Yes they are. Check prices with your dealer or look at one of these:
www.bhphoto.com
www.adorama.com
>4) Is the 30mm extra on the 28-135 worthwhile.
Yes, it is. I use it a lot.
>In short,
>Both lenses are rated similarly and rather well as consumer-grade lenses in
>both MTF-tests (value for me?), EOS-list and user-comments. Is there any
>preference to one of both lenses regarding above questions and the value for
>price?
Get the one that you'll still be happy with 5 years down the road. You
don't change these very often, do you?
My choices were as follows:
20/2.8 lens.
28-135 IS lens.
100-400/4.5-5.6L IS lens
Canon 1.4x TC
>It has become a rather long story. Sorry to have bothered you with that, but
>I think it is better to make clear what you want than to have a half the
>information you wanted.
>
>Thanks
>Edo Schraa
Good luck and take your time making your choices.
Pierre
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
