--- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have no idea about consumer tele-zooms but would I > be right in > thinking that the 28-135mm f3.4-4 IS would be a good > start for him? The > only thing I could recommend unequivocally was IS.
Dunno about the contenders, but here is why I went for a 28-135: - IS - Ring USM (which means silent AF & FTM) - Metal mount = more robust - Non rotating front (eg polarizer friendly) - Wide angle (28mm) to decent Tele - Decent close focus (20 in.) - Pretty good good picture quality - All that for under $350 pretax Pretty good if u ask me. Of course if I had quid to burn, the 17-40/4L or the 24-70/2.8L or the 24-105L would be my way to go. But for now, at least I get to dream big ;-) Hope that helps, - Harman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
