I'm not saying the 28-135 isn't good. I have 11 x 14 enlargements made from images taken on my 10D with the 28-135 and they're quite nice.
It's just that the other two L lenses are visibly superior. They really are impressive on the 10D.
I still like my 28-135, because it's longer than the 17-40 and because of IS also. But I'm thinking of the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L IS.... at least thinking costs nothing...
Pierre
At 08:35 2003-10-11 +0900, you wrote:
Pierre Bellavance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>That may be true, but pictures taken with my 17-40L and 100-400L are >sharper than those taken with my 28-135 on my EOS 10D. > >Is it because the 28-135 doesn't outperform the resolving capacity of the >10D's sensor?
Geez, Pierre, and I was thinking of getting a 28-135. Perhaps your example isn't up to snuff? I have seen results pretty darned good from it.
Jim Davis Nature Photography http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/ Reply in plain text only please!
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
