Ken Durling wrote:
>
> I still feel pretty sure that I want the 17-35 and 100-400 IS
> to be the bookends of my lens kit since I just can't
> afford a real "bird lens",
Considering that these two lenses, new, will run nearly US$3000, you're already
in "bird lens" territory if you consider a second-hand 300/2.8L. I can't speak
from direct experience, but my guess is that you'd get better image quality from
the 300/2.8 plus 1.4x extender (420mm) than from the telephoto zoom at 400mm.
> but my traditional side
Would that be the side that wants to fill up your bag with zoom lenses? ;-)
> Another question - sorry if it's a dumb one - has to do with IS and
> metering.
IS has nothing to do with metering. All it does is reduce the effects of camera
shake at shutter speeds slower than you would typically use with any given lens.
The "gain" in f/stops isn't real--it's just a way of indicating how much slower
a shutter speed you can get away with to get a sharp image, hand-held; so that
if you would need a shutter speed of 1/250 sec. to overcome camera shake without
IS, you may be able to get away with 1/60 sec or 1/125 sec with IS. Keep in mind
that this is ONLY for camera movement--IS does absolutely nothing to make moving
subjects appear sharp when using slow shutter speeds. The "stabilization" in IS
refers to stabilizing the camera/lens apparatus, not to any subject that might
be being photographed.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
