At 5:14 AM -0400 8/1/01, Punkey wrote:
>So...after getting all that off my chest, what's my point. I guess it's
>just to tell people like me (amatuers with a desire to produce the best
>photographs they can on a budget) that the 100-300 L is the way to go it
>your staying under $300 for a lens. It really can't be beat. All your
>worries about a non-usm lens are for not....go with what counts....which in
>my case is what makes me happy...quality prints i'm proud of.
Thanks for that post. Yes, it's a useful reminder that user
interfaces and ultrasonic motors are terrific, but ultimately they
don't directly affect optical quality of the lens. USM is a great
feature, and the 100-300 USM certainly handles beautifully (rapid
focussing and so on) but I'd vastly prefer optical quality over a bit
of convenience any day. The kind of "anything that isn't an L-series
USM lens is crap" attitude on places like photo.net is kind of
discouraging for those of us with more modest budgets.
Speaking of modest budgets, I'm kind of puzzled as to the excitement
over the 70-200 IS lens. I mean, sure - it sounds fabulous and I'd
love to own one. But is everyone here really that rich? Frankly, the
list price of that lens is more than what I've paid for all the EOS
gear I've bought in my life. But then I usually pick up 10 year old
used gear...
- Neil K.
--
49N 16' 123W 7' / Vancouver, BC, Canada / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The satin finish provides darkly deviant good looks
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
