On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:54:15 -0400 Rob Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi > > Normally I would also agree with 28-135 IS option (it's a very good lens). > Did > you know that Canon just announced a 24-105 f4 L lens with IS? The new lens > is > one of the 'L' series (Canons Pro lens series) and should be much better than > the 28-135 (plus it's f4 instead of f5.6 at the tele end). > > Rob > > > Hello, Thanks for the information about 24-105, I didn't know about it. But since it's a L series it's probably way out of my budget to buy a lens. And is IS really that good? I've read it can improve up to 2 stops. I never tried it but I'm not very convinced of it. About the Canon's 28-135 I was getting convinced with what Bob has told me (and you also agree) and with the reviews I was reading about that lens. Although someone on a review came up with something I hadn't thought of since this one is a "regular" lens and not a DC one (when I say regular I mean it can be mounted on a film camera also) I'll have the 1.6x factor on my eos 300D making the lens a 44-216... Maybe that's not wide enough, I use my 18-55mm a lot. I'm getting 2nd thoughs now, it's still better than my 55-200mm, but what I really wanted was a lens that wouldn't make me to change lens all the time. Paulo Abrantes +------------------------------------+ |web: http://pabrantes.deviantart.com| +------------------------------------+ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
