> Alex, > > You hit a very good point. If the individual is happy with what they > are using that is all that matters. Many people get emotional when > they start talking about equipment they own and why they bought it and
> how great it is. If you remove the emotion and look at the facts, at > middle apertures it does not make sense to only use L glass. However, > if you shoot wide open that is the reason you want L glass because > they are better wide open and wide open quality is what pros want in a lens. Well, just to add another couple of cents to the discussion. I have both the 28-135IS and 24-70, and used to own the 28-70. I still use the 28-135 on that rare occasion when I really need to keep it to one lens and know I need the long end more than the wide angle, or really feel I need the IS. I don't use it much. That doesn't mean you can't get perfectly good shots with this lens. It was my only lens in this range before I could afford the L glass. I was happy with it at the time and am still happy with the quality of those pictures. So, ignoring all the subjective questions about picture quality, and assuming for the moment that optical quality is equivalent, there are still a number of reasons why I prefer to use the 24-70L at f2.8 vs. the 28-135 at f5.6. Brighter Viewfinder: I disagree re. "at middle aperatures it does not make sense to only use L glass". No matter what the shooting f-stop, the viewfinder still gets 2 stops more light than an f5.6 lense. I can judge focus and compose better and faster with this extra light. Ok, I'm over 50. Maybe this doesn't matter so much to some of you. Filter Use: I can use a 2 stop polarizer and still see what I'm doing. Faster AF: There's no comparison on the speed of the AF on these two lenses. AF on the 24-70 is still robust even in fairly low light conditions. With people and animals, this can be the difference between getting a shot or not. Wide Angle: I shoot wide angle a lot, so to me there's a big difference between 24 and 28mm. With the 1.3 magnification factor on my 1D chewing up the wide end of either lense, that little bit extra still makes a difference. Walking in the Rain: Used with a weather sealed body, the 24-70 expands the weather conditions I can safely shoot in. DOF Control: With 2 additional stops of shallower DOF available, I have a much better chance of being able to blur the background to my taste. ISO and Shutter speed: Obviously, given 2 more stops to work with, I can shoot at lower ISOs and/or use faster shutter speeds. So, even if we don't argue the optical merits of the two lenses, my take is that the 24-70 helps me employ a broader range of techniques and shoot under a wider range of conditions than the 28-135. I will capture some moments with this lens that I might not get otherwise. I can still get perfectly good pictures with the 28-135, and there are definitely times when I don't get the shot I want because of the missing 65mm at the long end of the 24-70. On balance, though, for most of my shooting, I will come back with more keepers using the L glass. For someone who shoots out * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
