> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jorrit de
> Which lens would (or did) you choose and why?
> What are the pros and (more interesting) cons of both lenses?
This is a question asked quite often. Therefore, I would advice you to check
the archives to get more opinions.
Nevetheless, here is my input. Before the 70-200/2.8LIS the main advantage
of the 100-400 was the IS. This advantage is now gone with the
70-200/2.8LIS. The only remaining advantage of the 100-400 over the new
70-200 seems to be the price and a continous range of 100-400. I haven't
owned the 100-400 so I can't compare the image quality with the 70-200. It
is my understanding though that the 70-200/2.8L(IS) is at least as good as
the 100-400. The reason why I have chosen the 70-200 is because it is my
opinion that it is more versatile then then 100-400. Having owned the 80-200
previously (and the terrible Tamron 100-400 before that) I realized that I
do not go over 200mm too often. When I do then for my kind of shooting the
time to add the converter is of no big issue. Also since I use manual focus
quite often I prefer to brighter viewfinder of the 2.8 over the slower
lenses I have owned. So unless the additional cost of the 70-200IS +
converter is a big issue (if it is it might be worthwhile to live a little
bit longer on sugar water + vitamine pills;) ) or you often use the focal
range around 200mm I would suggest the 70-200IS. And if money is the biggest
issue then you could buy the 70-200IS first, then later on add the
converter. Personally, I only see advantages for the 70-200 unless you work
often in the 200mm range.
Robert
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
