On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:55:34 -0500, you wrote:
>At 04:59 PM 1/12/01, Ken wrote:
>> >At a couple hundred dollars difference, what is the opinion of you
>> >experienced with such matters as to what I would be sacrificing by not
>> >buying the 100mm Macro USM, and just buying the AF version? Is it a
>> >lot louder? Slower?
>
>Ken, I tried and tried to like non-USM lenses. I tried and tried to like
>non-Canon lenses. Even the best of Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, et al do not
>measure up to Canon's USM and "L" serices. I have vowed that, regardless
>of price, I will not be lured into a false sense of saving some bucks when
>buying lenses. Of course you know this just by trying a non-USM lens. But
>I thought you might like some reassurances.
>
Thanks, Gary. I was going to say "You get what you pay for" but some
of those aftermarket lenses you mention are not cheap.
Based on what I find myself doing most with my new camera, I think I
am going to invest in a long lens first, though. I think the 75-300
USM III I have is pretty limited. (But then so is my technique!) In
this case you DO get what you pay for except I had to accept what the
insurance co. would pay for! "L" series here I come.
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
