On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Bill Jameson wrote:
> 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
> ...
I think it's probably because some only shoot from a tripod when using a
long lens like that, or they use tripod for the evaluation shots at least
- or they just believe what others who shoot with tripod say... - and when
shooting from a tripod it's only the quality of the optics that matter.
And the quality of 100-300 might just be that much better than the 75-300
IS. But the table is probably reversed when these lenses are used handheld
- and I think that's the majority of photographers! Then the deciding
thing really is the IS in practice. Sure the optics of 75-300 IS could be
better (I've used that and now the 100-400 IS and there sure is a
difference!!!), but shooting without tripod the lack of IS makes the
100-300 worse IMO (<- I never have enough light!!)
Best regards,
Hugo.
************************************************************
** Hugo G�vert **
** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hut.fi/~hugo **
************************************************************
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
