Ron wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My 50-200/3.5-4.5L has died. I'm now choosing between the 70-200 2.8 or the
> 4.0. Has anyone regretted buying the 2.8 lens? Too big? Optically not what
Nobody! :-)
Seriously, I remember one person that did change his mind and get the 4.0
instead a while ago, but that's it. I've never heard anything but raves
about the 70-200/2.8. Whether it is too big/heavy only you can say. If you
are willing to carry it, it has no other drawbacks (except lack of IS and
conspicuousness).
> you expected wide open? Do you leave it home more than you thought you
> would because of the weight? Do faster/more pushable films make you feel as
> though you don't need the 2.8 now? Or any other reason?
Fast films just make it more amazingly useful!
Of course if you know you need ASA800/F4 for your favorite subject, then
that answers the question, but if you want the extra DOF control and
extra low light ability, then the 2.8 is better.
Jim
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
