Bill Jameson wrote:
>
> 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
Your comment about the past history of the 75-300 may be correct. It
was actually a used lens that I briefly borrowed, so its past history
could have been rough. I was told at the store that what I experienced
was typical, compared to the 100-300, so I took it at face value. I
also used the 100-300, and the 100-400 more extensively, both of them
for two days, while the 75-100 experience lasted less than 1 roll.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
