In fact, as can be observed on Photodo and inferred from numerous online reviews and tests, the 28-70 L is one of the sharpest zooms available in its range. I don't have one (yet), my own observations are only based from word of mouth of others, online and magazine material though. I'm surprised a bit you didn't find pure truth in this reports. Perhaps there are variations between the samples ? Also, this one have been prized in pretty much every public reports by its built quality as well (though not to be mount-sealed as the new 24-70 L is advertised to be). This point you also put is doubt.
I like to hear various opinions even completely opposite about the same product, that may yield the real picture. Regards, Alex Z -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-eos@;a1.nl]On Behalf Of Thomas Bantel Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EOS eos lenses and robustness "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" schrieb: > > Jack Casner wrote (edited): > > > Two weeks ago I found a "bargain" on the 28-70mm L > > and tried it on my camera. Maybe I didn't spend enough > > time examining the lens but it seemed no more robust > > looking than my 28-135. > > > > As I say, this may be faulty observation on my part - I was > > in a hurry - but I wasn't very impressed. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Jack, > > Well said. Although I think you will need to get your teflon coated flame > retardant suit ready as this is the holy grail of lenses for the advanced > amateur. If you actually check out the resolution specs you will also find > the 28-135mm quite comparable to the 28-135 IS optically in the mid > apertures. If one needs F2.8 then there is little choice, but if one doesn't > shoot wide open then the 28-135IS IMO is the best bet (except for Chip who > prefers his 28-105mm. See Chip, saved you the trouble of replying). The 28-70/2.8 L does certainly not have the same solid feel as e.g. the 80-200/2.8 L. It has a little play in the lens barrel (at least my sample), although not as much as my 28-135. Now, if you actually check out the resolution specs, it seems really not overly impressive. Well, to compare mid range apertures is a little like, hmmm, comparing a VW and a Ferrari at 50 mph. The interesting thing is, the 28-70 is quite good at apertures that mean wide open with the 28-135. And even at f/2.8 it's not really a bad performer. Then, there are those things you won't see when you are in a hurry: Real world results. I'll put my flame proof suit on, I have to state I believe to see a difference beyond sharpness. Maybe it's the more vibrant colors or the infamous Leica glow, the pictures appear to look different when compared to my 28-135 or 28-105 (or my Sigma 28-70/2.8). Thomas Bantel * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
