--- "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your point of F2.8 is understood but if one were to > shoot primarily > at the F5.6-F11 range, the F2.8 does no good. Well, that's not really true. AF is likely to be more accurate at f2.8, and the image is brighter, therefore easier to see what you're getting. And at f 5.6 the 70-200 is two stops down, which is probably in the optimum sharpness range. The 100-400 is at best 1/2 stop from wide open, and probably not nearly as sharp. By f11 the differences are probably slight. > Besides, with a 2X TC > the 70-200mm is not as sharp as the 100-400mm at > 400mm, I diagree with this statement. I've compared the older 70-200 2.8 with the older 2x with the 100-400, and found results (at 400mm) to be indistinguishable. As the 70-200 IS is reputed to be sharper than the older lens, and the new TC is at least as good as the old one, I would be very surprised if the 100-400 is sharper. ===== Bob Meyer I wish I knew what I know now, when I was younger... http://www.meyerweb.net/epson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
