Don't have the quantifiable feedback you are looking for, but my thoughts are:
- The 100-400 takes up a much smaller volume when collapsed to the 100mm range, which is a great benefit when trying to fit all the gear in the smallest amount of space - The 100-400 allows you to compose without having to walk forwards and backwards, that's assuming you can even walk forward and backward given the space available, I don't know how many good images I would NOT have been able to take if it wasn't for this lens over the past 6 plus years - Downside of the 100-400 is the additional zoom mechanism means more components and more prone to failure, the manual focusing ring assembly on my 100-400 has failed twice on me over years, the first one was repaired for free under warranty, the second time it costed me CDN&$400 to have it fixed, but Canon said they will fix it free of charege or replace the lens if this happens again Even with the inevitible slight softness of the 100-400 at the long end and the potential for failure from the extra mechanism, I still would have picked the zoom over the prime myself since it gives me so much more flexiability that I am willing to accept the slight image softness, and as Hanning said post processing in digital domain compensates for most of the softness anyway. Ken -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
