> 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.
This is exactly what pisses me off quite a bit. People tend to exaggarate the
differencies between lenses way too much. I also got an impression that only an
idiot would buy 28-90. Well, I did (with EOS 30) and I have been _very_
satisfied. I have observed the slides both with an 8x loupe and a projector and
they are a lot sharper than anyone suggested. In fact I think that many people
who said how bad it is have never actually used it. And as no-one cares to buy
one everybody gets the impression it is bad - and the circle goes on and on!
28-90 is not _razor_ sharp or _crystal_ clear but it is sharp and clear and the
pictures come out just fine. People seem to find differencies only when they
know which picture is from which lens. And they should definitely concentrate
more on the pictures themselves, not neuroticly on sharpness, contrast...
Oh yeah, that helped...
Severi
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
