Chip Louie wrote: Hi Gary,
If the EF 28-300 IS L had even a chance of being optically great of course we'd (us optical perfections nuts), all be "interested" in seeing the results. But I don't recall EVER seeing a high quality zoom lens in 35mm format no matter what letters you give it perform even reasonably well with a zoom ratio past much 3:1 let alone 10:1. No doubt if Peter K. tells us that he likes it he'll also be saying that it should be good enough for the rest of us too. Other people who's opinions I trust have posted their experiences saying that the EF 28-300 IS L zoom while interesting, is NOT a very good lens. I like many people tend to believe those that find results that over time confirm their own experiences. I see no reason to get excited about this lens at this date. Or maybe people are too busy to reply at the moment. -------------------------------------------------------- Chip, You may very well be right here. One of the reasons I wanted to try this is that recently I had the chance to test a Canon 20-35mm which everyone said was great for digital even though it was really designed for film against my own Tamron 20-40. Few like the Tamron on this list. We used a friends EOS 1D Mk 2 and placed used each lens shooting wide open and stopped down. We compared the shoots at corner and center in Photoshop CS. The Tamron blew the Canon away. So I was interested to see what the real truths where. The 28-300 could be a dog, or could be good. We shall see. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
