Chip Louie wrote: Hi Peter, You somehow think that adding IS to a low price point lens doesn't add a big dose of compromise to the overall design and reliability of a lens? Are you nuts? Well to answer your question, I carry at least one spare body and a set of spare batteries. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chip, Not "nuts" Chip, just a somewhat knowledgable student of Dr. Kingslake. You should read his books on lens designs and stop trying to discredit my comments like a Johnny Cochran! BTW, I do not appreciate the "nuts" comment! There are compromises with ANY lens design. Even the well regarded Planar or Tessar, both much copied lens designs by the Japanese lens makers. I did not think the 70-300 IS lens was a dog since at the 75-150 range it was very sharp. I did not expect the 300mm end to be as sharp as the 300mm F2.8L but IS did help maintain sharpness since I had a better chance to get an image at the mid apertures. Yes, slow AF but that may have been the compromise to gain the better optically quality. The compromise with the 28-135mm lens and gaining IS was a larger barrel but it is arguably better than the 28-105 (I know you own the 28-105mm so that is why I say arguably) optically. I have constantly used the lens over a 2-3 year period in wet, dusty, and other not so kind environments. No problems. Much more reliable than the old Canon A1's shutter box and probably more reliable than the rear dial on your A2e or EOS5. :-) Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
