--- Gary Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I offered the hypothetical question of "why the 70-200 IS" a while
> back too,
> as the regular 70-200 is neither a slow nor particularly long lens so
> would
> the IS feature be of substantial benefit? A lot of people thought it
> would
> apparently as plenty are eager to shell out the kind of dough it's
> going to
> cost.
Since I use a tripod most of the time the IS does not give enough
advantage to replace my 'old' lens. Nevertheless, if you shoot handhold
I see lots of advantages with IS. You can use slower film, work with
more DOF where necessary, work in less ideal lightning condidtions,
panning for the people who like to do that, get rid of the cable
release, no need for MLU, etc. If I had plans to by a 70-200/2.8 I sure
would chose the IS and pay the premium of a $200-300. But that is my
personal opinion.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
