Pattie Anderson wrote:
>
> > You've sparked my curiosity now, and I'll be keeping my eyes
> > open for a
> > good used 300/4 L. As to the range between 135 and 300 that I'll be
> > without - likely I'll never miss it. I won't sell my 75-300, but it's very
> > unlikely I'll carry it with me shooting after getting a 300 L.
>
> I got the 75-300 USM almost immediately after I got my camera, and bought a
> second-hand 300/4 L a few months ago (got a very good deal on it <G>).
> Although the prime lens is heavier and not as versatile, I can see a
> difference in the quality of my photos.
>
> If you think you'll be taking most of your photos at 300mm and you can
> afford it, I'd recommend the prime lens. But I still have the 75-300 --
> don't use it much, but I'll admit there are times when I need the range.
>
> Pattie
KEH.com has one listed for $725 in excellent condition.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
