> I for myself want metal mounts, I want a good manual
> focussing ring, and I want a useable distance scale.
> And I don't want that as a luxury extra, I want that
> as natural norm.
>
> I do use EF lenses exclusively, but I know that Canon
> can do most lenses in a better mechanical standard.
> And I want that.
>
> --
> Michael
Are you admitting that you use cheap consumer lenses, Michael? I got the
impression you were an L lens user.
"I frown at the prices for "L" lenses.... and buy them
nevertheless"
"I do not mind to carry the EF 1.2/85 mm L or the EF 2.8/20-35 mm L"
I for one appreciate the low cost of consumer level lenses. I don't want
them to change things. Not all 'non L' lenses have poor focusing rings or
plastic mounts, either. There are lenses that fall between the 'L' and
consumer lenses. The EF 50/1.4 is one of them. The EF 28-105 another. (and
many other fine, low cost EF lenses)
Are you saying ALL EF lenses should have metal mounts and manual focus
rings that feel good? If so, there would be no entry level lenses.
I happen to own two reasonably priced EF lenses that have a metal mount,
a good manual focus ring and a distance scale that's useable. The EF 20-35
USM and the EF 35-135 USM. I'm very happy with their construction, price,
and performance.
But I don't think a lot of beginners want to pay for lenses like these
to go with their new Rebel. Not everyone wants to pay even $400 dollars for
a lens. Many people want a lens and camera for that price. And Canon is
giving it to them. With plastic mount, poor manual focus ring, and no
distance scale. With Canon, we get a choice.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
