Discussion
Mmmm, not sure I'd call the Canon 28-300L or 35-350L cheap! They're very tricky to use and, considering the amount of negative comment they attract, Canon must have a very good technical reason for making them that way although I have no idea what it is. I've never heard a positive comment about that aspect of their design. I think the 100-400L is the same?
I don't know about 'cheaper', but I'm guessing the issue with something like my Canon 100-400 is that the front element has to move eight or ten inches. Bearing in mind your wrist can only comfortably handle a twist of 120-180 degrees, a twist-zoom mechanism would have to be pretty highly geared to move the element that far. That would make it harder work and less precise.
As i understand it the Nikon 80-200 is a very good lens optically, but now overhsadowed by the 70-200 VR, so it's not as 'desirable' as it once was. There have been several versions of the 80-200; perhaps the one you're looking at is not AF-S but screw-drive AF, which is slower. Again this would reduce the desirability of the lens.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff



ks, the lens has to extend the same distance irrispective of the mechanics.