When I was trying to decide between the 35-350 and the 100-400, none of those who had used both felt the 35-350 was any less sharp than the 100-400, but most recommended the newer lens because of the IS. Now that IS is available on either (if you consider the 28-300 to be a replacement for the 35-350), I for one would probably make the switch to the 28-300 if it retains the optical qualities of it's predecessor. Paul, you might find it useful to search the archives here for the discussion late last summer. It will be interesting to see how well the 28-300 compares to the 35-350 (and 100-400).
Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Skip > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EOS Better lens? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Moortgat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 3:39 PM > Subject: EOS Better lens? > > > > Is a Canon 28-300 lens better than a 100-400 one? Anyone > tested then > > both? > > > > Paul Moortgat > > > > Since the 28-300 has just been announced, it may be a little > soon to expect > anyone here to have used one, not to mention compared it to > the 100-400. > But I seriously doubt that a 10x+ zoom lens will stack up > favorably to a 4x > zoom. New technology or not. > Skip Middleton > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
