Thomas Bantel wrote (edited): >... 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.
Gee, what would be the difference then if bith cars were on a highways and both were only allowed to run 50MPH? Answer: Nothing! You see, at 50MPH the VW owner is saving a small fortune, the Ferrari owner is worrying about the next payment. >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). Here we go again. The Leica glow is "old-timer talk" that typically justifies an amateur owning an expensive lens. Granted the 28-70L is an excellent optic, but unless you need F2.8, save your money. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
