Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part:
> I also rented the 100-300 USM, the ring USM version, and really liked it too.
> Not as good as the 100-400, but good contrast and saturation, remembering that
> it is a $300 lens, not a $1600 lens. 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!.)
I get amazed at what gets dumped on the EF 75-300 IS. I'm not
doubting Skip's experience, but it doesn't match mine, nor does
it match the results for the EF 75-300 IS and the EF 100-300
f/4.5-5.6 on photodo.com (tested at infinity) The photodo
cumulative is 2.9 vs. 2.4, with the EF EF 100-300 losing at all
tested focal lengths. I've been quite pleased with the results
with my EF 75-300 IS, especially at the 75-180 mm range, and I'm
constantly surprised with how well my shots at 300 actually turn
out compared to other's complaints. I do wonder whether possible
variences in manufacture (or perhaps previous rental history of
the 75-300 IS, though it's not clear that that one had been
rented.)
Bill Jameson
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
