"Kenneth M. Sarno" schrieb:
>
> 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.
>
It's also not the real story. There is a difference in image quality between
the two lenses, but it's not a "night and day" type difference. The 28-135
is a very reasonable lens, but still has a long way to go to come near prime
or "L" glass quality. Again, "not coming near" does not mean *that* much of a
difference.
> 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.
>
Besides that the difference is really not *that* big, web based comparisons
are always problematic and tend to even things out. With everything short of
a drum scan, the fine differences which will result in big differences in
large (bigger than 8x10") prints, are mainly lost in the scanning process.
> 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.
>
You really don't have to feel bad for her, as long as shed doesn't try to
produce big exhibition prints ;-) Contrast is another story and the differences
are more easily seen even in quite small prints, also chromatical aberrations.
But these are not things that pop out on you from a cheap 4x6" print.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************