[Arthur Macmillan]

Back to the 12-100mm.  If I remember, I think Tamron came up with the first 10x zoom lens for a DSLR.  The 18-200mm.  I got one, and I eventually sold it because I wanted to buy some other lens, but it wasn't that bad.  Still, don't the laws on lens snobbery exist anymore?  Can you really call a 10x zoom a PRO lens?  It makes me wonder if they aren't really packing these tiny MFT lenses with super technology that just might not be doable on much larger FF lenses do to their large size.  If a 10x zoom has PRO quality that is saying something.  I think Canon has released a really large zoom x factor "L- lens", but I sort of ignored it.  I figured it was just a fad.

 

OK, this is the lens: 

<p class="">EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

<p class=""> 

<p class="">This is interesting to me only in the fact that Canon should not call this kind of lens L, should they?  See!  I'm a lens snob and I'm not really even a good photographer.  I just like taking pictures!  (I have access to Tamron's 28-300 Piezo Drive VC, but haven't really used it much.  It is compact, I will give them that!)

<p class=""> 

<p class="">To tell the truth I don't even think the

<p class="">Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Should be an "L-lens" because of the variable aperture.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">On the other hand

<p class="">Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Most definitely deserves L status.  You have to have some exceptions.  A lens with this zoom range has size constraints.  I don't the the 70-300 is long enough, I mean, it's non-L variants have the same demographics!  I've heard it is better than it's numbers suggest (meaning its review numbers), but it seems like a hard sell to me!