Hi Jorrit,
Would you consider the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS lens? I heard from a sales guy in a camera store that the IS version of the lens is sensitive to accidental dropping. One would hope to never ever drop a lens, but it can happen. The sales guy said that he's seen the IS mech fail after a small fall which wouldn't have affected a non IS lens. Also, there are usually a goodly number of 70-200mm non IS f/2.8L lenses on www.ebay.com from time to time. And it's still a very good lens. Regards, Lawrance ----Original Message Follows---- Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:04:47 -0000 From: "Jorrit de Jager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: EOS 70-200L IS or 100-400L IS ? Hi all, after living on sugar water and vitamin supplements for a year, I have finally saved enough money to buy my very first L lens (even a new one!). I currently own a Sigma 50 mm Macro and the 28-80 IV that came with the body. That lens will be replaced later. I'm looking for a zoom that starts somewhere around 80 and goes up to 200mm or more. Considering my tendency to shoot handheld I thought IS would be a nice feature. I first thought about the 75-300 IS, but I have read to many negative things about it. Given these criteria I came to either a 70-200 2.8 IS USM or a 100-400 4.5 -5.6 IS USM. (If there are more please let me know) Both are L-glass, have ring USM and IS (and about the same price tag). Adding converters, the 70-200 can also reach 400 (560?) and still be fully functional. I´ve been reading posts and info about both lenses with interest, but I am still in doubt. Buying both as second hand items is not something I really consider. Living in Iceland, the second hand market is not really crowding with these lenses, and being on the market for a year I don´t expect te 70-200 IS to show up anyhow. Buying abroad is not really an option considering the high activity level of the Icelandic customs service :-( I want to put the new lens on my EOS 50E (Elan IIE) body. I´ve been told that because of light metering limits (of the body) the use of the 100-400 in combination with converters is a problem for AF (2x converter puts the min. f at 11). So my questions: The specs claim that the 50 can AF up to EV 18, does this mean that with converters I will have limited AF or will I have no AF with the 100-400? I have no main field of interest yet, so there's a good reason to go for the most versatile lens. (I shoot about everything I lay my eyes on and seems picturesque, indoors and outdoors) Which lens would (or did) you choose and why? What are the pros and (more interesting) cons of both lenses? TIA, Jorrit PS Are there any Iceland based fotogs with one or both of these lenses a member of the list? Maybe that way I could ´feel´ both lenses for a bit? If possible close to Akureyri / Husavik. Please contact me off-list if you want to help me. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
