On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:41:20 +0100, you wrote: >I mainly shoot slides, where that might be more obvious. What are your >experineces with that?
Well, the shot I was talking about was a slide (Velvia) - http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=396880&size=lg (this was shot at 28mm, wide open (f/3.5) - about a 1.5 sec exposure, those are the cows on the hillside on the right - but of course here the shot has been downgraded for the web) and I've shot lots of slides with it. I'm not quite sure what you are saying would be more obvious with slides - sharpness? Well yes, the lens is not going to perform like a W/A prime, but my point is that it is really quite good. It would depend on your application - it's fine for mine, but I would call myself nothing more than a finicky amateur. I do like things to look really good, but may not be applying professional standards, quite. Have you looked at the MTF graphs on photodo? They tell you where to expect fall-off. As far as the barrel and pincushion distortion of the lens, it's there. I've run my own (informal) tests comparing to 3 other lenses, and it came in about 2nd or 3rd. Not a huge differencefrom the best one I tested, and far, far better than the Canon EF 28-90 that I had at the time. ( A straight line near the edge of a 4x6 print was bowed out nearly 1/16" at the center with the 28-90! vs about .3mm for the 28-135) I only really notice it when there are straight lines near the borders of the shot. I'm aware of it, and can adjust my framing, capitalize on the effect, or use a different lens when it's a potential problem. For traveling it will probably be just fine. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
