Robert Meier wrote:
Re-read my message and you will see that I have owned a 100-400. It wasn't a
Canon but that does not really matter for making a judgment about
versatility. As a matter of fact, I don't think I even have to own 100-400
lens to make such a judgment. I know my shooting style and my needs and from
that it is clear to me that the 70-200 is by far a better solution for me
then the 100-400.
---------------------------------------------------
Hi Robert,
I did. You stated: "Having owned the 80-200 previously (and the terrible
Tamron 100-400 before that)"
Tamron made a 200-400 but not a 100-400mm. As to versatility, how can a lens
with a 70-200 range be
more versatile for average shooting than one with a 100-400mm range?
Now Robert, please understand that I am not saying this with the tone of a
curmudgeon so please do not take it as an attack but a query. Having used
both lenses I find the 100-400mm far more versatile for typical shooting,
and equally sharp. But for portraits I prefer the F2.8 lens. For me, my
middle aged eyes have not had a problem with manually focusing either one
even with a 2x on the 100-400mm which made it an F11 at 800mm.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
