04-18-2011, 08:15 AM
Hi Klaus,
Thank you very much for testing the 100-400, 400-5.6 and 300-4.0L lenses within such a short period. As a satisfied 100-400 user (on both APSC and FF) there was always the feeling that other lenses in the same category (size, price, reach) might be better, esp. if one reads the user reviews on the Internet. Now I know the 100-400, at least for me, is the better lens, far more versatile without sacrificing to much image quality. Only if Canon comes up with a real successor for the 100-400 (better IS, weatherprotection) I will be interested (no, not the new 200-400 4.0L or the 300-2.8L mkII).
Best regards,
Rob
Thank you very much for testing the 100-400, 400-5.6 and 300-4.0L lenses within such a short period. As a satisfied 100-400 user (on both APSC and FF) there was always the feeling that other lenses in the same category (size, price, reach) might be better, esp. if one reads the user reviews on the Internet. Now I know the 100-400, at least for me, is the better lens, far more versatile without sacrificing to much image quality. Only if Canon comes up with a real successor for the 100-400 (better IS, weatherprotection) I will be interested (no, not the new 200-400 4.0L or the 300-2.8L mkII).
Best regards,
Rob