The biggest con of the 100-400 AFAIAC is that it is a push-pull zoom design, you have to slide the zoom ring length wise to change focal length, rather than simply turn it. Thus, the overall length increases with the focal length. As far as cost, the IS version of the 70-200 is about $400 more than the 100-400, and then add $200-300 for the TC. The difference starts to push $700, and for that, you could add a 200mm f2.8. The 70-200 IS is slightly longer, slightly smaller in diameter and slightly heavier than the 100-400.
Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorrit de Jager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 4:04 PM 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. > Iīve 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 donīt 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. Iīve 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 īfeelī both lenses for a bit? > If possible close to Akureyri / Husavik. Please contact me off-list if > you want to help me. > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
