"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote: > > Agreed, IS is a great feature and main reason I switched to Canon just a few > > years back. As to your collection, I have some prime lenses that don't get > used > as often as they use to (135F2L, 35mmF2, 50mm F1.4) as my 28-135IS > has always bailed me out in most instances. The "Leica glow" was the > only thing I was really commenting on. Leica lenses were not great until > the late 50s. Guys like Henri Cartier Bresson used Leica bodies > with Zeiss Sonnar 50mm F1.5 in the 40s. Zeiss optice were far > superior at that time. Fact not fiction.
I think we agree about that "Leica glow" thing. If it existed, it was just aberrations ... Now, when I wrote "Leica glow", I didn't mean this literally, I used this term to indicate "something" that I believe to see, but am not able to explain scientifically, at least not on a solid fundament of tests. About the "wide open" aperture of the 28-135, mine seems to switch to f/5.6 pretty early, well before 90mm (around 75-80 I guesstimate). Whatever, f/5.6 is not more than maybe 1/3 - 1/2 stop from wide open at 70mm. The 28-70/2.8 is stopped down 2 full stops, that's a big difference. Anyway, if I can (or want to) carry just one lens, I prefer the 28-135 IS over the 28-70 in most cases. Bigger zoom range and IS, less weight ... But when I carry the 80-200 already, I always add the 28-70 to my bag. Thomas Bantel * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
