On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 02:15:45 +0300, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:05 AM >Subject: RE: EOS Re: My First L Glass > > >> BTW, how would you rate the 28-135 in general ? >> I just begun my EOS adventure (former Minolta user) acquired EOS-3 with >> 28-135 for starter, though initially intent to get 28-70/2.8 L USM. Was >> offered the EOS-3 + 28-135 USM IS for great price so jumped on that >> opportunity having in mind to sell the lens and get the L one. >> However, I see people in general praise this lens for it's performance and >> versatility. >> What can you say ? > >I't pretty nice general lens and at least sharp enough for me. I have shot about 10 >000 photos using it. Range is great, much better than in other EF zoom in that class. >Therefore I have problems with upgrading, I would like to get a lens with less barrel >distortion, but the only real choice is 24-70 f2.8. And that range is too short for >me. In parties and weddings the range is very good and without extra 65 mm compared >to 24-70, it would be much more difficult to shoot around here. > >Sharpness of the lens is good enough, I usually shoot with f8 and have had no >problems with it. I have had several covers and two page spreads shot with 28-135 and >there is no difference in printed material with the results compared to my magazines' >regular lenses like 28-70 f2.8. Handling of the lens is also ok, nothing to complain. >I suggest you to purchase a hood if you don't have it yet, at lest for me it's very >important and also a nice protector of the outer lens surface. I shoot much at sea >and with hood sprays won't reach my lens if I shoot from inflantables and small boats. > >Barrel distortion of the lens is the only major bad feature. It's really notable at >28 mm, much worse than in 28-80 consumer zooms and actually it might be worse than in >any EF wide angle lens! You note it at sea where horizon is clearly barrel-like and >ruins easily the shot. There's no much to do with this phenomenon, I just try to >compose photos in a way that distortion is not seen. I'v also noted some vignetting >when shooting against the sky in certain weather conditions, but usually that doesn't >bother me. > >What comes to IS, it's very useful. I seldom use tripod and on my assignments I just >have to put camera on something solid and try take photos then. I just got my article >out with one photo about helicopter cockpit shot in the middle of the night. It took >some 1-2 second exposure time and I just hold the camera in my hands with PB-E2 >laying on my Lowerpro AW bag. I thought that the shots would not succeed, but after >getting the slides back I could even read the small text on green screens of the >plane! In all I took about 10 photos using the same method and 8-9 of them came out >perfectly. > >Anyway, I find 28-135 IS a good lens and very good compared to it's price. As I said, >I have problems with replacing it even though I would like to get a model with less >barrel distortion, so maybe I have to stick with my current model. I have recently >gotten some nice clients like Boat International and Showboats International that >keep very high quality in their photography. My 28-135 has completed the jobs, but >I'd like to offer still better images with straight horizon. > >BR > >Jaakko Pitk�j�rvi
Jaako - That's an excellent assesment of the lens. Well done. I feel much the same. It doesn't have the vivid, almost 3D quality that I've sometimes seen from the 28-70/2.8, but sometimes it comes damn close. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
