I wasn't aware of promoting "older, cheap" glass, maybe "older, good" glass and maybe well priced glass, but not cheap.
Neither am I guilty of sugarcoating anything, I am well aware of the limitations of the system but when set against the advantages I am satisfied that I made a good choice. Had I been starting from scratch, would I have made a different choice, I don't know, but that's water under the bridge in any case.
Do I rubbish Canikon or their Users, No! There are legitimate reasons for choosing the brand and I respect that decision.
I'd like it if you went here > http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=...id=9&Itemid=43 < and read the article paying particular attention to what the tester says about the 28-135mm. This was a test of all the six classical professional zooms from the Sony / Minolta system (3.5/17-35mm G, 2.8/24-70mm Zeiss, 2.8/28-70mm G, 4-4.5/28-135mm, 2.8/80-200mm APO, and 2.8/70-200mm SSM on a Sony A900 over a ten day period. I can point you to other reviews of the lens which draw similarly good opinions.
I'll be very interested if you can find any evidence to the contrary, otherwise I expect a retraction of your uninformed opinion.
The rest of Elisha's lenses are a sound middle of the road choice considering the expenditure, could she have got better glass? Yes but not for the money, we don't all have unlimited budgets.