>Yes, and compare Photodo's rating of the 28-70L to the 28-135 IS and >you will see virtually no difference in the ratings from 28-70. In >fact the 28-135 beats out the 28-70 at several focal lengths and >apertures. I guess nobody who spent big bucks on an L lens really >wants to see those ratings heh heh. > >The 28-70, although slightly dated now, was raved about for many years >by photographers who bought it. Amazing the power of money. > >I know, the build quality is superb :-) > >But then again, I could buy three 28-135s for the price of a 28-70. >Some people have said, and it's true, that I've never tried a 28-70L. >But I have two better lenses, the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 and frankly I >haven't been that impressed. Which is why I'm selling them. Good >riddance to old tech primes.
Jim I've got both the 28-135IS and the 28-70L. I don't mind photodo but my own pics taken either with a EOS 1Ds or a EOS 1V. And I see the difference! The 28-70 is the zoom that is generally used on 75% of my pictures. The difference is even bigger in the digital camera. I think that the IS lens is an all purpose zoom for pictures that are not to be enlarged very much, but for exigent work the "three" L zooms from 16 to 200 are unavoidable tools. Regards Felix * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
