> > I hear a lot of complaining about that the new 24-70 has been > > extended "in the wrong end". Don't forget that the 28-70 replaced the > earlier 28-80... > >And your point with regards to the old EF 28-80 2.8-4L is? When Canon >replaced the EF 28-80 2.8-4L they massively improved the lens in terms of >vignetting and gave it a constant f/2.8 aperture. This improved the new >lens' utility increasing its viability tremendously and was reason enough to >change to the newer EF 28-70 2.8L lens. The narrowing of the zoom range was >the compromise used to achieve the incredible sharpness and contrast of the >EF 28-70 2.8L lens, the likes of which had never been seen at the time Canon >introduced the lens.
My point is exactly what you mention. They compromised the focal length at the long end for constant aperture and increased sharpness and contrast. People here want a 28-105/2.8L, and I can't help to think what a massive lens that would be, not to mention could it possibly compete (in regard to sharpness and contrast) to the current 28-70? Not to mention focusing speed and all other aberration and distortion issues. Personally, I'm thrilled with the new 24-70 (then again, I don't have the 28-70 :-)), and I can't wait to see some reviews and comparisons. - Marius * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
