Ohhh the irony! I'm sorry. I never meant to 'rub it in'. :( I have the 75-300 and it's really a nice lens. I think it's got a much better quality than my 28-135. I love the range of the 28-135 though; it's my 'walking around lens' and I used it way more than all the others combined. I've not even tortured myself by looking at what is actually availiable in Ls, but I'm hoping there is something that covers somewhere close to the 28-135 range b/c that is just perfect for me. I'm just not happy with the quality of what I've got. ~ Lonnit
Phil, if you listen to the advice of me and Lonnit, for best results, turn off your brain and don't even look through the viewfinder, LOL. Shoot with your heart. May the Force be with you... --Olaf.dk
Thanks Lonnit - but I sold this lens as it just "didn't work for me". TBH, when I looked back on this one I thought "Yikes, I *really* like that picture!" - and now I just might need that lens in a project I'm about to undertake! But there's no way *my* "budget" will allow me to spend even more (not without selling something else - and there's nothing I'm prepared to give up).
What shocked me more is that this is a relatively early photo for me - it's almost as if I was better when I didn't think about it so much... :)
(BTW The 70-200 L is a *fantastic* lens, but I wanted more reach for wildlife photos...)
Phil
OMG Phil - yes, a great shot. But I took one look and said to myself 'what the heck is going on with the quality here?!!!' I looked and sure enough I see the L in the lens info. I've just GOT to get myself one of those buggers! I'm telling you, if I ever sell some stock shots, every penny of it is going back into L glass. YIKES is that fine! ~ Lonnit
