> >And then I have the shitty 75-300 mm as an emergency option
> >in my bag, that I used exactly two times last year when I
> >needed to bridge distance for newspaper work. I very
> >rarely need focal lengthes over 85 mm, I'm more the guy
> >closing in on his subjects. For newspaper work the 75-300
> >is acceptable
>
>
> Why do you *insist* on dissing this lens in a less intelligent manner
> than the rest of your often-informative posts? We heard you the first
> time. Some of us are trying to make the best possible photographs we
> can on a less expansive budget, and are trying to learn as much as
> possible from people likje yourself who impart a lot of valuable
> information on this group. I am also shooting dozens of rolls of film
> in an effort to improve my skills, not just talking about it here.
> When I keep hearing someone tell me the stuff I'm using is "crap" andf
> "shitty" it's tiresome, and I stop listening to you. Especially when
> I find out you use it yourself. I *know* it's a not an L lens, and I
> imagine we all know that. What would be helpful is if you would
> post some ways to get the best out of this lens, instead of constantly
> swearing at it.
> Ken
I agree. I have the 75-300 in my collection, and have really used this
lens in all conditions. I must disagree - it's far from shitty. It's a very
good lens. It may have a rotating protruding front and a less than optimal
focus ring. But, I've shot excellent photos wide open at the long end hand
held. I like that it focuses very closely, almost to macro. I like that it's
not too heavy and is quite compact. I've gotten some surprisingly good
photos from it. With sharp, clear detail and excellent contrast and colour.
I have no beefs about it, it does a fine job for me. I often use it in
manual focus mode with no complaints. After seeing results blown up to 11 by
17 I can say that it's plenty sharp enough for professional use.
I'm really getting tired of hearing this lens 'dumped' on by people who
can afford a thousand dollar plus lens instead. I highly recommend this lens
to people who want a tele-zoom for a reasonable price. I might add that even
with a Kenko 2X extender, it's plenty sharp enough for good enlargements.
You might think maybe I don't know decent quality. As a 30+ year
professional photo printer, I have seen what's sharp and what's not. I have
seen what kind of quality sells and what can be blown up.
How do I get good results with this lens? I use fast film and hand hold
carefully. That's it. No secrets, no magic. Other than the EF 100-300 which
many have said is optically about the same as this lens (and doesn't go down
to 75mm), there really is no replacement in this zoom range. The EF 100-400
not only cost 12 times as much, but is a huge and heavy lens. the EF 70-200
L is just way short of this range too, so this lens fills an important place
in the lineup for me. I really have not considered replacing it at this
time, except perhaps with the 75-300 IS lens.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
