Dan Honemann wrote:
>
> > The 75-300 IS was just awful, not as
> > sharp as the 100-300, nor as good saturation. But for me,
> > saturation is not as important as contrast, since I primarily
> > shoot B&W (and mostly nudes, at that!.)
>
> Just how far away are those nudes you're shooting?! For the price of
> the 100-400 IS, you could get the 85/1.2L or 135/2L and have change
> leftover--plus a much better lens for portraiture (IMO).
>
> Dan
>
That would be another reason the 100-300 would be a better choice. I
already use the 28-135 in the studio, and for most of my work. It's
just that sometimes, in some of the terrain I shoot in, the 135 isn't
enough reach. And the 85 f1.2 is more expensive than the 100-400. I'd
love to own lenses like that, but economics dictate otherwise. If I
earned my living with them, it might be different.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
