Chris Eastwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to: >why do we have to get junky lens barrels, and mechanisms??
I think my EF 20-35 USM is very well built. Both my cheap old 35-105 lenses are still working fine. My old 35-135 USM is still working like new. My original EF 75-300 is a solid performer, although I agree with the feel of it being junky. I find the newer USM lenses to be pretty good handling and feeling lenses. I wish I could say the same about the old camera bodies like my now departed 10. >From the look of the auctions, most lenses are still working, rarely do I see a junk lens, but many junk bodies. >is the answer to only buy L series lenses?? Which is a shame if it is. Well, I think there should be more mid range lenses, agree there. The lens I just bought, the EF 85/1.8 USM is such a lens. Good performance without emptying your bank account. After looking at the tele-zoom lineup though, there seems to be some lenses missing. I like the 100-300, but it scored sooo low on Photodo that I don't really crave one. I need something a bit faster anyway. An F4 lens of 100-300 USM would suit me. Something that scored decently, I'd be willing to pay a bit more for too. I just don't want to pay out to the level of an L lens, either. I think our best choices in the mid range are the prime lenses. Unfortunately, this seems to be our only choice at the moment. I can't say anything about Canon's new telezooms though, they have out I believe a 50-200, and another one around that range. I must agree though that they aren't getting any better looking :-) By the way, I've never dropped a lens. Spill coffee on them occasionally, but never dropped one :-) * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
