On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Scott Huguley wrote:
> was faster than the Nikon. I have used a 100-400mm "IS" for a number of
> months now and have been very satisfied with the AF.
Same here. I usualy don't want to write to threads like this, but this
time I really can not stay out. The 100-400 AF is very fast. To put it
another way... which 100-400 (or there abouts) lens is faster in AF?
Sure 70-200 f/2.8 is faster, but it's also f/2.8! Attach the 2x to it, and
suddenly it slows down. Or the prime 400mm f/5.6... I've never used it,
but I could imagine as it's prime it would be easier to construct in many
ways, and that might result for instance in lesser amount of glass to be
moved while focusing. Don't really know. But the point is: there are
faster lenses than 100-400, but none from it's class. If you need the
versaility, there is no competition.
Only things that I don't like about the lens is (well other than it's not
2.8 :-) that sometimes when I'm shooting wide open (I do that quite a lot
with this lens) and there is some very bright spot on the background, the
spot turns into an oval rather than circle. This is of course the Bokeh
thing we've been talking about here a lot. But for me it usually doesn't
matter. I've only had a few images where it is clear and distracting. Oh,
and another thing... is push-pull zoom... I don't like that. I prefer the
zoom of 70-200 much over this. It also makes me worry about getting dust
inside the lens.
Best regards,
Hugo.
************************************************************
** Hugo G�vert **
** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hut.fi/~hugo **
************************************************************
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
