I just looked at Photodo's ratings of the 28-70 and the 28-135 side by side. In the mid range of focal lengths, there is literally no difference in the sharpness of the two. I know many of you will challenge this, but that's what it says. The former is a bit sharper at 70, but then again it doesn't go to 135, which is where the later's rating falls down a bit. I think many people are victims of hype about this lens. I have heard plenty of Pros who use the 28-135 all the time.
Photodo and most other MTF measurements are flawed when you try to compare a f/2.8 lens against an f/4 or f/5.6 lens. They test the lenses wide open and in that case, of course the f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 will have more problems than an f/4 lens at f/4.
If you compare an f/2.8 lens at f/4 against an f/4 lens at f/4, you'll see the difference. Even at f/8 which is the point at which lenses tend to approach each other, the L is superior to the IS at all focal lengths.
Anyway, it seems like you're speaking from zero personal experience (except "friends" and "pros") so there's really no point in discussing this any further. Because at f/2.8, the L lens is much superior to the IS. :-) Furthermore, the IS lens suffers from almost twice as much distortion than the L lens. At the wide lens, the IS has more than twice the distortion. Note that the new 24-70 has even less distortion.
Each lens has its place. The IS is a very good lens for its price. The L is a very good lens for its price. But they're in different price domains.
KN
-- Karen Nakamura http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
