<?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: Can You Explain Any of These?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/</link>
	<description>The blog of bird photographer Arthur Morris</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 15:28:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/comment-page-1/#comment-1948901</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2022 21:59:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=80217#comment-1948901</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/comment-page-1/#comment-1948726&quot;&gt;Ryan Sanderson&lt;/a&gt;.

I did not use it by I held one. If it weighs more than The Sony 70-200 and its versatility is crippled by TC incompatibility why would anyone care how small it is at 70mm?  

As most do, I see it as a terrible blunder by Canon. I would assume that most folks would go with the last version of the EF 70-200 and the RF-EF Adapter ...

with love, artie]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/comment-page-1/#comment-1948726">Ryan Sanderson</a>.</p>
<p>I did not use it by I held one. If it weighs more than The Sony 70-200 and its versatility is crippled by TC incompatibility why would anyone care how small it is at 70mm?  </p>
<p>As most do, I see it as a terrible blunder by Canon. I would assume that most folks would go with the last version of the EF 70-200 and the RF-EF Adapter &#8230;</p>
<p>with love, artie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ryan Sanderson		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/comment-page-1/#comment-1948726</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan Sanderson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2022 23:17:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=80217#comment-1948726</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/comment-page-1/#comment-1948250&quot;&gt;Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART&lt;/a&gt;.

Have you had a chance to use the RF 70-200 2.8?  It’s far smaller, when at 70mm, than any of the other 70-200 2.8 lenses on the market.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/18/can-you-explain-any-of-these/comment-page-1/#comment-1948250">Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART</a>.</p>
<p>Have you had a chance to use the RF 70-200 2.8?  It’s far smaller, when at 70mm, than any of the other 70-200 2.8 lenses on the market.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
