F. Craig Callahan wrote:
As Ken says, a very nice shot. It is difficult to imagine anyone not being
pleased with a photo such as that.
However, as I'm sure you know, the degree of sharpness required for offset
printing is often quite a bit less than that required for photographic
enlargement. Of course, making the sale in the first place may require a
good
deal more sharpness than the reproduction does. (In other words, having a
photo
in print isn't necessarily an indicator of technical excellence, although
getting someone to select that photo might be.)
Regardless, I still think the non-IS 300/4L is the better value at current
U.S.
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig,
Do you own the non-IS 300mm F4 L lens?
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
