On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:48:58 -0700, "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>Quite the contrary Jim, it weighs only 15 ounces, is 3.2 inches long and >2.9 in diameter, and uses 67mm Filters. Compare that to the 28-135 which >is 1.1 lbs. 3.8 inches in length but 3.1 in diameter with 72mm filters. >The 17-50 is slightly larger than the EF15, but the EF15 is a fisheye >and the Tamron is not. Ok, weight and size aren't too bad then. However, most of it's range is overlap with the 28-135, and zooming up to 50 won't be that much of an advantage. I think for other reasons too a prime appeals to me. Less dust sucked in, less things to break, etc. Plus, I'm not convinced that Tamron makes a decent lens at all. And of course price, I'm guessing but it's not a cheap lens either ;-) The fisheye part doesn't bother me although I'd prefer a prime 14 or 15 that wasn't a fisheye. And wasn't huge or expensive, sigh like the EF14L. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits, Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts. 1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
