In a message dated 12/14/00 7:18:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< 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
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?
Thanks,
Ron
>>
Hi Ron,
Well, having 2.8 is nice, but if you are used to your 50-200L 3.5-4.5 and it
was fine with your type of shooting - maybe faster lens is not what you need.
Canon 70-200L2.8 is a great lens. But I'm pretty happy with older Canon
80-200L 2.8 - no USM, no FTM and can't use Canon TCs, but optically it's the
same if not better than 70-200L, fast enough for my needs, much cheaper,
smaller, and lighter, and works great with new Kenko Pro TCs. - Just maybe
another option for you. If I was buying lens in this range now - I'd go for
newer Canon 70-200L 2.8 and not 4.0, nor 80-200L, but at the time I got my
80-200L money was an issue. Do I plan to upgrade to a newer version? Maybe
when they make the IS one, otherwise I see no reason. But main reason I'd go
for the 2.8 lens vs 4.0 - is ability to use TCs and still have fairly fast
lens. All my lenses but one are 2.8 now (my 300 is 4.0) and that's what I
like about them - fast, fast, fast, but I use slow film almost all the time.
And don't forget, 3rd party companies like Sigma and Tokina make some very
good lenses now too, and cheaper.
George
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/Yegey/EntrancePage.html
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
