>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).
I've used the 35-350 and sold it when I bought the 100-400. Mainly for the IS. I've found that the quality of the 100-400 is much better than expected and, certainly, better than 35-350, but a 28-300 with a better optical quality than 35-350 and IS would be a dream for using it as the only lens with my 1Ds and avoiding this nightmare which is the sensor cleaning in adverse circumstances. For sure I'll go for the 28-300! Felix * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
