Gary Russell wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (message snipped for length)
> > 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.....I've
> > been quite pleased with the results with my EF 75-300 IS...
>
> Bill:
>
> I tend to agree with you. I think the 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM gets a bad rap
> to a large degree. It may not have perfect optics, but there are a lot of
> other lenses that fall into that category, and on balance, I think it's a
> very good lens.
I think that one of the things that gets lost in these kinds of discussions is
that none of us can see the photographs on which each person is basing his or
her argument. Without being able to see the photos in question, for me or anyone
else to say that a lens is terrific or is crap has to be treated by the reader
as pure subjectivity. What standards are the participants applying? What one
person may find "good enough" or even excellent, another might find completely
unacceptable. So if someone says a lens is pretty good and someone else says
it's a waste of money, both could be correct. What you demand from your work has
a lot to do with what lenses you find acceptable for that work. And most people
like what they use (or else they'd be using something else).
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
