--- Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:42 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote:
> >I think that a 24-70 2,8L is more usefull.
>
> Time will tell . . . but you may find others agree
> with you. We will see
> what Canon announces at the PhotoEast show this
> Autumn. You may turn out to
> be a prophet. :-)
I think they need to follow what Sigma has done. Not
only do they need a 24-70 2.8, they *need* a 100-300
f4 USM, (also like Sigma's) hopefully with IS. I find
it curious that the old 100-300 f5.6 L is on closeout,
I hope there is a good USM replacement out soon. The
100-400 IS L is just too pricey and heavy.
MadMat
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
