----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Huebner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: EOS Trip to Rome
> I took my Elan IIe,
> Canon 28-135 IS 3.5/5.6, Sigma 17-35 HSM EX 2.8-4, polarizing and UV
> filters, my SpeedLite 420 EX, cheap Velbon tripod, and film>
>
> The Sigma lens was new. I'm either going to return it or sell it. It did
> not suit my needs at all. I only took it out 3 or 4 times. I think that
> if I go back, I'll get something in the 20mm range around f2.8 or faster.
Aside from the zoom/prime quality issue, why would a 20mm 2.8 be better than
a 17-35 2.8 zoom? Weight or what?
>
> If money was no object, I'd probably take a tele zoom like the 100-400 2.8
> for long shots of the Pope.
Now if somebody would just make a 100-400 2.8. I'll take two ;<) Or even if
Canon would make a 100-400 IS one-touch......
tomp
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
