On 30/10/02 at 08:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bantel) wrote: > 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
This description of the 28-70 L lens' optical qualities caught my attention. Can you say whether the 28/2.8 or 28/1.8 have similar qualities to this- or indeed any of the other primes in or around this focal length range? Joe B. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
