I don't own either of those lenses, but if I were to judge solely from what
I've read on this thread and other newsgroups, the 28-90 is a worthless dog
and the 28-135 is a really great piece of glass. But that's not what I saw
in what you put up.
My reaction to your comparison is this: yes, there are magnification and
contrast differences, but, at least in my case, I had to look close. It
wasn't like the difference between a dog and a gem jumped off the screen and
hit me in the face. Perhaps a difference would become more obvious comparing
pro-printed enlargements rather than low-res screen scans. But from what you
put up there, they don't look all that different to me.
I appreciate your comparison, in fact. It made me feel better for a kid I
know who got a Rebel 2000 with a 28-90 for her graduation.
--Ken S.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
