David Malek wrote:
Hi maybe the question sound strange but i've just bought a 70-200. And i'm
really concerned by its weight.
I'm wondering if there is any data about the quality of images with IS
cheaper lenses as compared to L lenses without IS? As i'm considering also
buying a 28-70 L
2.8 ... and already have a 28-135 i'm wondering if it's worth it!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO its not worth it. Although the 28-70mm is an excellent lens you are
duplicating focal lengths.
Secondly, here is the comparison using Photodo tests.
28-135mm IS Weighted MTF for 28 mm: f3.5 0.73, f8 0.74
28-70 F2.8L Weighted MTF for 28 mm: f2.8 0.77, f8 0.81
28-135mm IS Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f4.5 0.81, f8 0.82
28-70 F2.8L Weighted MTF for 40 mm: f2.8 0.75, f4 0.81, f8 0.83
28-135mm IS Weighted MTF for 85 mm: f5.6 0.80, f8 0.79
28-70 F2.8L Weighted MTF for 70 mm: f2.8 0.70, f4 0.77, f8 0.81
28-135mm IS Weighted MTF for 135 mm: f5.6 0.70, f8 0.73
Judge for yourself.
At F8 there is not much of a difference between the two plus you get IS
which allows you to handhold the lens at slower shutter speeds, and a 135mm
focal length. On the other hand, if you really need F2.8 there is no choice
but the F2.8 L lens.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
