> But the auto-focus motor is in the lens, and it does not use up the > camera batteries. Come on, now, you can not have it both ways, if it is > good enough for Canon (grin)...
Yeah, yeah, I know... <vbg> For manual focus, though, the AF 35-70/2.8, um, well, er, ~stinks~ (<g>). You also have to understand that any discussion on my part of autofocus is almost meaningless - other than the two "specimen" ME-F 35-70's, I have only three autofocus lenses (F* 300/4.5, FA* 865/1.4, FA* 80-200/2.8, all used manually), so I am still an autofocus neophyte (or, probably more correctly, still a manual focus dinosaur - <g>). Not having had much autofocus experience, I've often wondered about the plusses and minuses of putting the motor in the body vs in the lens, batteries in the body vs the lens, etc. I've also wondered about the "power zoom" functionality (the huge contacts on the mount of the 80-200/2.8 smack of maybe too much current having to be transferred from body to lens - I dunno). Fred
