<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Photo Geek Weekly Episode 110 &#8211; Shuttered Stock	</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photogeekweekly.com/podcast/photo-geek-weekly-episode-110-shuttered-stock/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photogeekweekly.com/podcast/photo-geek-weekly-episode-110-shuttered-stock/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 21:14:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Rich Ball		</title>
		<link>http://photogeekweekly.com/podcast/photo-geek-weekly-episode-110-shuttered-stock/#comment-1722</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Ball]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 22:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photogeekweekly.com/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=472#comment-1722</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Don - I listened with interest your discussion on the rumored Canon long lenses.  Canon has dabbled with the Diffraction Optics lenses in the past.  There was a 70-300 f4.5 - 5.6 and a 400mm F4.  The zoom was quite expensive and not very sharp - I own one.  The non &#039;L&#039; version was sharper in my opinion.  The L non DO is a nice lens.  The only advantage of the DO version is it&#039;s compact size.  The 400mm is well thought of and expensive (Approx $7000).  I&#039;m pretty sure that the these new rumored long lenses will be expensive.  

Change of subject - What&#039;s the status of your new book on macro photography?  Can I still order a copy?

Rich]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don &#8211; I listened with interest your discussion on the rumored Canon long lenses.  Canon has dabbled with the Diffraction Optics lenses in the past.  There was a 70-300 f4.5 &#8211; 5.6 and a 400mm F4.  The zoom was quite expensive and not very sharp &#8211; I own one.  The non &#8216;L&#8217; version was sharper in my opinion.  The L non DO is a nice lens.  The only advantage of the DO version is it&#8217;s compact size.  The 400mm is well thought of and expensive (Approx $7000).  I&#8217;m pretty sure that the these new rumored long lenses will be expensive.  </p>
<p>Change of subject &#8211; What&#8217;s the status of your new book on macro photography?  Can I still order a copy?</p>
<p>Rich</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 
Database Caching using APC

Served from: photogeekweekly.electricpickleonline.com @ 2026-02-21 16:30:18 by W3 Total Cache
-->