Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
I remember telling someone who asked about the 75-300 IS that
"maybe I got the one that worked." Photonet.com had some of the
most vituperative comments about any lens about it when it was
introduced, many disappointed that Canon hadn't used the 100-300
f/4.5-5.6 USM for the basis of their first IS lens. Others, such
as Glen Johnson and Frank Sheehan found it to be good from
75mm-about 180mm. In four years, still the toughest lens decision
(zoom tele) that I had to make. I feel like a winner, though I
know many, many people have been disappointed and I've never
known what the difference could be. I've scheduled the focal
lengths covered by my 24-85 to be replaced with prime lenses, but
haven't felt the pressure with the 75-200 range because my photos
look pretty good to me.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
