Sorry for late answer but I got kicked back because I forgot to
change the subject line.
>Ah . . . except I already have a 200/2.8! :-) When the budget allows
>(ever?),
>I'm looking to fill the gap between the 85/1.8 and the 200/2.8--I keep
>vacillating between the 135/2L and the 70-200/4L.
How about having 100/2 (instead of 85/1.8) and 200/2.8?
Since you already have the 28-70/2.8 wouldn't 100 fit better with it?
If you also had the 70-200/4L then you would have lots of options:
- 28-70, 100/2, (with or without 200/2.8) for low light or
- 28-70, 70-200/4L if you want less weight but full range or even
- 28-70, 200/2.8 if you need faster 200mm lens but feel lazy to carry
everything.
Carrying 28-70, 135/2 and 200/2.8 would be the same as 28-70 and
70-200/2.8 weight wise?
Just some thoughts although I know everyone makes what they like.
Vesa
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
