John Chennavasin wrote:
> All indications say that the 70-200/4 is as good as the 70-200/2.8. It also
> focuses a foot closer too. Whether you need the extra stop or not is up to
> you, and dependent on a few factors:
>
> 3. Filters
Just to clarify, there is only one other lens in the current EF lineup that takes
the 70-200/4L's 67mm filters, whereas the f/2.8 lens shares 77mm filters with
several other lenses.
FWIW, I remain skeptical about the prospect of seeing IS in f/2.8 lenses shorter
than 300mm anytime soon. With the exception of the super-teles, where
magnification amplifies any movement due to vibration, wind, etc., the point of IS
(it seems to me) is to provide the shutter-speed advantages of a large maximum
aperture without the cost or size—hence the 28-135/3.5~5.6 IS. It seems to me more
likely that Canon would introduce an IS version of the f/4 zoom than of the f/2.8
zoom. I understand that this is probably a minority view, but if you're going to
put IS in the 70-200/2.8L, why not in the 200/2.8L? And quite frankly I see no
need for IS in the latter lens—it is just fine as it is.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
