Delta,


, I am glad I am not the only one. Justifying ~$1,500 to essentially replace a lens you've been happy with isn't always easy. But after looking at your images, I went back andcompared 50-100% crops of my EFS 15-85 and my 75-300 III USM. Pretty consistently, the crops from the EFS 15-85 were sharp, no CA, etc. In fact, some of the 100% crops were amazing, while some just a little off. But the crops from the 75-300 III USM were pretty consistently "soft" (I believe that is the term Bryan used in his review). So, in thinking about it, the 75-300 III USM probably gives me acceptable uncropped images. But with a new lens, I will get better uncropped images but also the ability to crop a section of the image and use that for my picture.


John,


You areexactly onmy next problem,which lens? If I didn't need to replace the 75-300 lens, then I could have spent my money on a couple of lenses, such as a macro (100 mm f2.8 or f2.8 L), a flash, and maybe a portrait lens (85 f1.8). But I do use the telephoto range, so I think I'll decide between the 70-200 f/4.0 L, 70-300L, and the 100-400 L. The 70-200's are appealing because of there IQ, size and weight, but they only go to 200 mm.The 100-400L has the extrareach and IQ are the pluses and the size and weight the minuses. And the 70-300L may have the best IQ of them all, and sits right between the other lenses in terms of reach, size and weight. Plus, it most directly replaces what I currently have.


But I have noticed that many of my favorite pictures posted in this forum have been taken with the 100-400L at 400 mm. Whether it be from air shows, wildlife, etc....it seems the extra reach helps getgreat photos. So, I think I'll wait on the 70-300L reviews and try to find a photo shop that stocks the 100-400L so I can check out the lens in person.


Thanks again,


Brant