>From: Pierre Bellavance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Vesa (and others),
>
>You think there is enough difference in focal length between these two
>lenses?
>
>I am looking for a longer lens to go with my fantastic 28-135 IS, and I
>felt that 200mm was not long enough to justify the cost of purchase, and
>that I should go to 300mm, or find a good 100-300, or wait for Canon to
>come out with a 100-300 IS Lens....
>
>Pierre
Hi Pierre
If I didn't have the 100-400 IS and 200/2.8 I would most probably
get the 70-200/4L. With 1.4x (as suggested by someone) it should
work pretty well, as well.
Actually the EF 28-135 IS USM is 129mm at oo (according to photodo) and
when you focus closer it gets even shorter. I think I was once comparing
it with my 100/2 and noticed that when focused at 1-2 meters the 28-135
was actually shorter than my 100mm prime.
And also: the 70-200/4L is one stop faster in the long end (but still
not too heavy).
Vesa
>At 16:09 12/29/2000 +0200, you wrote:
> >The 28-135 IS with 70-200/4L and some primes (35/2 and 100/2 (or 85)
> > is a great lightweight combo with lots of flexibility.
> >
> >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
***********************************************************
