>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/01 03:58PM >>>
>>> 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!!
David,
Yes, those "L" lenses are heavy. I had the 75-300 IS and I was not happy at all with
the image quality. I went for the 70-200 2.8L and I have never looked back. The
image quality is far superior. Maybe you may want to check into the 70-200 4L if the
weight bothers you. I would NEVER go back to that 75-300 IS lens. The 70-200 2.8L is
such a great performer.
I have te 28-105 that is supposedly similar in image quality to the 28-123 IS. I was
not happy with the image quality so I bought the 28-70 2.8L. Wow, what a difference.
I love this lens too. It is a heavy thing to carry around. But, that's the
sacrifice. I kept the 28-105 for vacations when I don't want to carry so much gear
or just goofing off. Again, I never looked back on my decision to get this "L" lens.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
