On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:42:40PM +0200, Schraa, Edo 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.
Good lenses both. I used to have the former, then replaced it with
the latter.
> As the price difference (� Hfl 500 ~ $200) is known to you guys, I
> have a few questions.
>
> 1) Is this difference worth the IS?
Depends on what you do, but if you shoot handheld at all,
IS is very worthwhile.
> 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)
Sometimes the half-stop makes a difference but very rarely in my
experience.
> 3) Are filters (UV, Polarizer) so much more expensive for an 72 (28-135)
> than an 58 mm mount?
Yes. Add them up in the price before making the decision.
> 4) Is the 30mm extra on the 28-135 worthwhile.
It's useful, but that alone wouldn't've made me switch.
The increase in size and weight is also of some concern.
Indeed if they'd make an IS version of the 28-105 without
increasing its size I'd probably go for that instead.
> Is there any preference to one of both lenses regarding above
> questions and the value for price?
If you only shoot on tripod, the 28-105 is better value for money.
If you shoot handheld at all, go for the 28-135, unless either
money is really critical or you really must minimize size and weight.
--
Tapani Tarvainen
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
