3rd time still not a charm. 28-135 vs L. No pics this post.

[Radtech1]

In the interest of bandwidth, I am not posting the picture here in the forum. Some have already mentioned the slow loading time. This URL will take the interested parties to the shots. Same resutls. 28-135 and 70-200L are equally sharp at 70mm. Shots were in the sun, at about 20 feet.

At 135mm, the L was less sharp than the cheaper lens at f5.6. At f2.8, which the non-L could not do, the sharpness of the L once did increase to just as good as the non-L

http://users.adelphia.net/~radtech1/Photos/3rdtime.html

Sammys thinks I might have a bad model of the lens. We will be swapping it out next week.

[roanjohn]

You must have a really good copy of the 28-135 IS....

Ro1

[Jyoti]

Thanks for taking the time and and effort to post up these test results, Radtech. I've found them very informative.

[ron chappel]

Ahh
the 70-200 has to be a dud if it's way better at f2.8 than 5.6!
Oh well-good thing you found it and can get a replacement.All the best
ron

[slejhamer]

Rad, many of use are looking forward to seeing the same comparison with the new lens. Thanks for these very interesting posts.