>>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... <<
I would *not* be happy if the 28-135 were the 'only' lens I would be using on my D60. OTOH, the improvement in handheld shots in low light is very noticable. (It's even more noticeable on the 75-300 IS.) >>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.<< Sigma makes an 18-135, and both Sigma and Tamron make 18-200 lenses optimized for APS-C digital SLR's like the Digital Rebel/300D. I think, if I weren't going to print any photos bigger than a standard 8 x 10, I'd probably be happy with one of those lenses. But, for about the same price, you could get the Canon 28-135IS... the EF-S 17-85 is about a hundred USD more where I've been looking. Tough call, I guess the tradeoff is how much you need to be able to shoot wide angle vs. how much you need IS. On a related note, does anyone know if the front of the newly-introduced 70-300IS rotates when the lens is focusing? That is really the ONLY thing I don't like about my 75-300IS, as it makes polarizer use "interesting", especially when you have the lens hood on! I wish the 70-300 DO IS cost about half of what they are marketing it for! Life is what happens to you... While you're busy making other plans! Mat Hayashibara [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
