Thanks for your overview. I realized that real pro bodies are designed with fast glass usage in mind which is fair intending for pro users. That is why I'm leaning towards such kind of glass to fully utilize EOS-3 power. However, about 95 % of online reviews talking about 28-135/3.5-5.6 USM IS praise it's performance big way, in terms of all aspects of optical performance except of distortions. Photodo rating of one is 3.5 which is extremely high (approaching pro grade markers) for such kind of lens (of course, they do not talk about contrast, bokeh and other features). All that is somewhat contrary to your conclusions. Strange.
In some future I'm targeting the 28/24-70/2.8 USM L, but if till then I'll discover all the wonders of my current 28-135 IS, I'll consider to leave it with me for a backup or travel lens (of course, budget permitting). Meanwhile, the first pro-caliber glass will come in face of 70-200/2.8. Regards, Alex Z -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chip Louie Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: EOS In reply to Mehrdad <<SNIPPED>> > > Yesterday I tried my new EOS-3 + 28-135 (without film, just > playing around) > and found it has weaker AF ability in low light, considerably > lugging behind > Maxxum 7 or even 800si. > Of course I tested with similar lens parameters (zoom and aperture setting > focusing on the same subject). The 7 nailed on the subject almost > instantly, > 800si was next to him and EOS-3 wasn't able to lock at all !! > That put some > ambiguous feelings in my heart, you know... :-) > However, I suspect for such beast like EOS-3 and/or 1V to really unleash > it's capabilities, including AF one have to use fast glass. > However, it seems to me the AF sensors (not crossed though) of EOS-3 are > less sensitive then these used in Minolta 7, which makes it hard to AF in > low light conditions. > > BTW, I'm not sure I understood your sentence: > "make sure the IS is working on the 28-135 since it is know for > it to go bad." > > Can you please clarify what did you mean ? > > > Regards, > Alex Z > Hi Alex, You've just found one of the best reasons to use f/2.8 or faster lenses with your EOS, the AF performance of the pro class EOS bodies (EOS 1 and later), relies on fast lenses for maximum AF speed. Canon has built their whole system around fast lenses on the pro line bodies, this is their market focus. The slow lens speed of EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS in addition to dragging down you AF performance in low light is slow enough that almost constant IS usage is almost a requirement with this lens unless you are using faster films, and why would you want to do that if you could avoid it? IMO there is no substitute for basic lens speed and fast lenses combined with IS technology can make for fantastic performing lenses. BUT IS cannot make up for the basic lack of lens speed and Canon knows it. A moderate compromise in lens speed can work well and add value to a lens, look at the EF 300 4L IS but this is still a compromise for the pro class bodies AF systems and IS clearly hurts the optical performance when compared to the non-IS version of the EF 300 4L. It's well known that older Canon pro class bodies do not perform as well in low light as the newer mid-level Minolta bodies. But on the high end of the performance scale there are, AFAIK, no other 35mm SLR bodies as fast or as sure focusing as a Canon EOS 1v with fast glass mounted under most conditions. It's just the way it works at the moment. Regarding the issues of IS reliability, some of the older IS lenses are starting to show their age and not very gracefully. The trend has been for some IS lenses to start having problems after a few years of use in the field. Loss of IS function, strange noises including knocking sounds and vibrations, slow IS operation, odd IS operation all started to be reported early last year. The reports and questions seem to center around the EF 28-135 3.5-5.6IS and the older EF 75-300IS. There have also been odd operational reports on the EF 300 4L IS used with some older mid-level and lower bodies from people in the field. I used an EF 28-135 3.5-5.6IS for a short time to evaluate it and found it to bee too much a compromise in terms of optical performance, AF speed and control of the image's DOF. I also had an EF 300 4L IS for half a year's time before giving it up and falling back to my trusty old EF 300 2.8L. The image quality of the EF 300 4L IS was simply no match for the EF 300 2.8L, not by a long shot and it got much more noticeable when using EF 1.4X and EF 2X converters. The EF 300 4L IS was the best performing lens both optically and operationally of the IS lenses at the time and it showed how much IS at the time compromised optical performance. The newest IS lenses (EF 300 2.8L, EF 400 2.8L etc.), have MUCH improved this situation and are now for all intents and purposes equal to the non-IS versions of the lenses. Of course these non-IS lenses were all designed over 20 years ago and these new IS lenses have had plenty of money thrown at them to get them up to snuff optically. I wonder if they spent as much effort on improving the non-IS versions if the IS versions would still give as good a showing in comparison? Anyway, I hope this helps! Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
