>> one area where canon has still a lead is
>> stabilized lenses. the importance of that
>> innovation seems to have been overlooked.
>> you gain 2 shutter speeds. this is very
>> significant, when you think whayou pay in
>> terms of price, weight, and bulk, for a f2.8
>> lens as opposed to a f4 lens.
> . . . . imagine you're holding the 300/4, which,
> according to your speech becomes a 2.8 lens with
> the IS. Go ahead and set your shutter speed to,
> say, 1/90. True, it's giving you as much light
> as a 2.8 one, but, go ahead and look at your slides.
> All you're going to see is a big blur of what
> was supposed to be a nice bird.
Yeah, different tools for different jobs. But
Nikon used to have the BEST tool for every job,
not just one tool that works OK for everything.
A 400mm/f5.6 with image stabilization would be
better than a 400mm/f2.8 for SOME things, and
a 400mm/f2.8 would be better than a 400mm/f5.6
with IS for SOME things. It would be nice if
Nikon would give photographers a choice of what
lens to get for their intended purpose.
Frankly, I want the 400mm/f2.8 not because it's
a fast 400, but because with a TC-20E it's an
AF 800mm/f5.6 that focuses CLOSE. Unfortunately
I'm not one of those guys for whom $7500 for a
lens and TC isn't a lot of money, so the 400's
got to wait a bit.
-Don
