Gary Lim wrote (edited): Personally, I don't or ever had owned any zoom that is longer than 3x. Optically, I agree that it is very difficult to produce any zoom that is portable and yet good in sharpness/distortion/CA. Having said that, I am still very interested in seeing the quality of the lens relative to the prime. :) For awhile, I've been contemplating if I should get a higher range zoom so I don't have to bring so many lenses while going on trip. I thought about 100-400 and 28-300 but many people have mixed opinions on these. Some have even sold their 100-400 and opted back to 70-200 IS. So, I've put this thought on hold until I can see any evidence to justify/reject the decision. (Hahaha, I think I'm asking for a good excuse to get a new lens). :-D
135 f2L?? Any lens would look bad in comparison to this one. :-D I just get myself one of these and it really blew my other lenses away. (OK, 70-200 is close but still not as good). And the boken is truly wonderful! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Hi Gary, Thanks for the kinds words. Yes, the 135mm F2L is a superb lens. I used it in my tests this weekend and it was the best of the lot. What did surprise me was there was some difference in the alleged "digital" lenses compared to the film lenses but not that much if any. I have to go through some more review and will post what the results show so far. Bear in mind this is not scientific. Just a plain old photographer taking some shots with a digital camera using specific lenses and comparing them on a monitor side-by-side. Some may say subjective, I prefer to call it real world. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
