George wrote:
>>Great review! I have a follow-up question. Did you ever try Canon 100-400L IS
>>lens? What's your opinion? How does it compare to 70-200L 2.8 with and
>>without TCs?
>>I'm trying to make up my mind if I should stick with a faster lens and TCs,
>>but no IS, or go for the big zoom with IS? It'd be used on 1n body, mostly
>>for wildlife and equestrian sports. Or do you think I'd get away with Canon
>>75-300 USM IS - I rarely blow up my photos above 11x14inch.
>> If anyone else on the list has any comments/ideas - please do tell.:o)
>>Thanks
>>George
Hi, George.
I have the 75-300 IS. On my particular lens the autofocus is very quirky. It
can track moving subjects keeping up with them fairly well. On stationary
subjects with low contrast this lens likes to hunt. There are times when in AI
Servo on my Elan IIe that autofocus just doesn't work at all. I mean no
hunting, no trying, nothing. It just sits there. Again, I may have a dud.
So, it's kind of inconsistent and has caused me to miss a number of shots.
Now I shoot mainly in manual focus with that lens (75%).
On the plus side, at 300mm my lens is relatively sharp. Not tack sharp, just
sharp, not as soft as some would lead you to believe.
So, for what it's worth, I'd steer you away from the 75-300 IS.
--Ian
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
