On 11/9/03 8:12 am Norman Childs wrote: > The very obvious and significant difference I noticed between the two lenses > was that with the Canon lens, the heather was reproduced as a gorgeous fully > saturated close to magenta colour, where as the Sigma was somewhat > disappointing in recording the same heather being very dull. Both had the > same skylight filter on.
I have just taken delivery of the Tamron 28-105 f2.8 and I've sent it back already. It suffered from just as much barrel distortion as the Canon 28-135IS but most importantly, the AF was the slowest I've ever experienced! It was accurate but you could almost hear the cogs winding themselves up :-) It was certainly beautifully built and the zoom was smooth with no slip at all. If I only used manual focus then I would have kept it. Without resorting to a fixed prime lens such as the 85 f1.2, I'm going to save a couple of hundred quid and put up with the barrel distortion at the WA end of the Canon IS zoom instead (standard to 135 was fine). At some point I really hope that Canon pull out a new fast portrait zoom as 24-70 and 70-200 no matter how brilliant, means more lens changes on a DSLR and I'm not keen on that. CFN Glyn =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
