----- Original Message ----- From: "Chip Louie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:57 PM Subject: RE: EOS IS 28-135 Lens
> > > Hi Skip, > > Which begs the question, what lenses and bodies do you shoot with? I did > mentioned that I noticed differences in the EF 28-135IS but none of them > were more than just good past 100mm or so and certainly no better than the > EF 28-105USM another relatively average, but useful lens with a bit faster > lens speed than the 28-135IS. As I've said in the past I always suggest use > tranny films for lens comparisons. Judging by print is simply much too > prone to operator and lab variations to see repeatable results. > > My film shooting with the EF 28-135IS was done on EOS 1N/HS, EOS 1N/RS and > EOS 1V/HS bodies. Several years ago during the time I could borrowed > various EF 28-135IS lenses from my photobum friends I was shooting with an > EF 15 2.8, EF 20 2.8USM, EF 50 1.4USM, EF 50 1.8 series I, EF 85 1.8USM, EF > 135 2L, EF 300 2.8L, EF 300 4L non-IS, EF 300 4L IS, EF 400 2.8L, EF 17-35 > 2.8L, EF 28-70 2.8L, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF 1.4X, EF 2X. > This is where I get my image quality reference points from. > > Since going digital I've simplified my lens quiver tremendously and now > manage to make due with an EF 15 2.8, EF 50 1.4USM, EF 85 1.8USM, EF 300 4L > IS, EF 300 2.8L, EF 16-35 2.8L, EF 28-70 2.8L, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM (lives > on an EOS 1 for casual and street shots), EF 70-200 2.8L IS, EF 1.4X and EF > 2x II converters. I've tried a lot of glass and these are the lenses that > work the best for me. To paraphrase Peter K's favorite quote "I like them > so I use them." > > Cheers/Chip > > Hi Chip, For the purposes of this discussion, I've used the 28-135 on my 1n and A2. I don't feel that my D30 gives enough resolution to really tell how sharp a lens is. I've compared it to my 50mm f1.8 mkII, 100mm f2, and the 100-400 IS, which, as previously mentioned, almost went back to the dealer when I compared shots with it at 100mm and the 28-135, both wide open. A comparison with my Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 shows the Canon to be the better of the two. I've also had the opportunity to compare it to my wife's 28-105, both as used my me and her, and I find the 28-135 consistently superior, but, saving the IS, not by as much of a margin as the price difference would indicate. Other points of reference would be H's cousin's 16-35L and 35-350L, plus his shots with his 10D with the 28-135, which are consistently excellent. My lens quiver is not as extensive, nor as expensive, as yours, but it suits my needs. I have taken images shot with the 28-135 up to 16x20 for display in galleries and had other photographers remark on the sharpness at that size for 35mm film. Like I said, some seem to be markedly better than others. Jim (my wife's cousin) and I look like we got very good ones, as does Peter. Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
