-----Original Message----- > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Alex Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote/replied to: > > > > >Jim. nobody is trying to convince you. Its your money, your decisions, > >your list of priorities. What may bother people here is any > >"theoretical" claims not backed up by an actual experience with given > >subject. Handholding/tripod issue has little to do with all that, but > >once again, nobody is purseading you with forking out lots of cash for > >24/28-70L lens, your satisfaction if only what matters for you, so if > >you happy with yuor current stuff - keep on, better spend money on film > >or photo advantures. > > It won't be on film that's for sure :-) > > It seems to me that you're wrong - people here are desperately trying > to convince me that their expensive lens is worlds better. You said it > yourself, you just threw out your other lenses. >
I don't own a 24-70l or 28-70l the only ef "l" lens I own is the 200 2.8l, I'd like to own more as the 200 2.8l has impressed me so much, sadly I can't justify/afford more. It produces images with a quality that I just don't see on any of my other ef lenses or FD lenses (other than my 50/1.2l :-)). I bought the 28-135 with great anticipation of a cracking do it all carry about lens. On paper it certainly seems to tick all the right boxes, my reality was a little disappointing once I'd got it. Marc (webmail) -------------------------- http://aurora.homedns.org * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
