----- Original Message ----- From: "Chip Louie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:14 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: EOS New 28-70/2.8L ?
> > > Hey dieter, > > Even I have to draw the line at f/2.8 for a 28-105 zoom. It will be too > large, too heavy and way too expensive beyond this aperture and then you > want to ad IS!?!? All IS does is raise the street price $400-$500 and make > the lens less reliable and potentially less compatable in the future. > Inexpensive IS lenses are a big compromise, cutting cost on IS lenses will > get us more dogs like the EF 75-300IS and to a lesser extent the EF 300 4L > IS. If a lens is to have IS Canon needs to identify the target market and > charge enough that the lens will be optically as good as a lens without IS > and with IS switched on be effective at stabilizing the image no matter how > the camera or lens is positioned. Canon also needs to make the IS system > reliable and transparent in operation. I would MUCH rather have a lens > without IS if installing the IS system into the lens will make it any less > reliable than a similar non-IS lens design. > > > Regards, > > Chip Louie > Chip, where are you coming up with the statement that IS reduces the reliability of a lens? My 28-135 has performed flawlessly for the last three years of heavy use. And there have been _no_ compatibility issues related to IS, with the exception of the late, unlamented EF-M. And IS is an invaluable tool for those of us unable to unwilling to use tripods. Blaming IS for the "dogginess" of the 75-300 lens is a bit off the mark, since the non IS version is not the best lens in the Canon lineup, itself, and the IS version is no worse than the lens it is based on. Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
