> Birnbach Michal wrote (edited for space): > > I own an EOS 3 and 28-135 IS USM + 75-300 IS USM lenses. I usually take > landscape pictures using only slides (mainly Fuji Provia 100F, 400F ar > Velvia). I 20x30 cm paper copies of better pictures. Only very rarely I > enlarge to 50x60 cm if a picture is worth it. > > I have no experience with other lenses therefore my question. Is it worth > for me to change these lenses? Canon 28-70 2,8 L and 70-200 2,8 L are > rather out of my range (I'd have to spare money for ca. 2 years - but maybe > it's worth?). I thought about Sigma/Tokina 28-70 2,8 APO and Sigma 70-200 > 2,8 APO or Canon 70-200 4L. After looking at the photodo www site I got an > impression that if not Canon 28-70 2,8L then all the other "short" zooms are > +/- equal to my 28-135 IS. OK maybe a little bit better but lower range and > no IS. Is it right? > > Will I notice any difference? Please remember i'm not a pro and make > pictures only for my own satisfaction.
Peter Kotsinadelis wote: > Ahhh, Sharpness, the holy grail for SLR users. If you like your results why > change?! > Your 28-135mm is every bit as good as the 28-70mm F2.8L at the mid > apertures. Use F2.8L lenses when you need F2.8 to blur the background or to > have faster shutter speeds. I have used my 28-135mm IS lens extensively > (from portraits to landscapes) and no problems with sharpness. > I have tested these lenses using slide film and projected them to 30x40 on a > screen. Guess what? You can't see a difference at a viewing distance of 4+ > feet. You have to go within 12 inches to see any differences. If I enlarge > bigger than this, I use medium format, or digitize the output and take > advantage of software that can render larger prints better than traditional > means. > > As to a longer zoom? If you need a 70-200mm for landscapes you probably will > not need F2.8, most landscapes are taken at F11/F16 with 35mm SRLs. I would > recommend the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM. Every bit as sharp as the Canon > 70-200mm F2.8L and actually a tad sharper than the Canon at 200mm set to > F2.8. I say this from actually tests and experience. Its about $US500 > used. Also consider the Canon 70-200 f4, which is substantially lighter than the Canon f2.8, and presumably the Sigma as well. After all, if you don't need f2.8, why carry it? Cheers Keith * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
