> Are you sure there has been some change (other than just some smalled "bug
> fixes")? I think that 3 stops is just marketing... Nikon claimed 3 stops of
> reduction, so of course Canon had to match that. Or maybe it's just because
> of the relatively shorter focal length.

Hi Hugo,

I was just quoting the Canon spec, nothing more. Beware that the Nikon spec
is a "relative" spec, not an absolute one. See this Nikon blurb, especially
the table comparing the 80-400VR and the 100-400IS:
 http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro_en/faq/lens/en/FAQ_lens_en_02.htm

Cheers
Julian Loke

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

Reply via email to