On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:16:44 +0100, you 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", and
>> I like the versatility. I have the most questions about the middle.
>I own both lenses and like them a lot (especially the 100-400). My mid-range lens is
>the 28-70/2.8 (I like the versatility of a fast zoom and need no IS in that range).
>All three Lenses have 77mm, so I can use same filter, polarizer or closeup-lens.
>For closeups sometimes I use the 28-70, but mostly the 100-400 with 500D - a
>combination which performs extremely well.
\
Interesting comments, again, thanks! I had thought about the
28-70/2.8, as it looks like a nice lens in reviews. Your filter size
comment is very interesting, I hadn't thought about that. I'm still
hanging onto this idea of having *some* fixed focus lenses, though!
Like a 50 or a 35. I wonder if I could *really* tell a big
difference, given that these zooms are all "L" series lenses.
>
>> Probably for my purposes the 100-400 plus 1.4x will serve.
>I use this combination with my -3 too (and most of the time at the long end).
>Handheld results are fine if the subject is not moving. For shooting birds in flight
>the resulting aperture f8 is too slooooow in most cases. IS does not help here.
Another helpful report. However, I will have to live with some
limitations, given my budget. Moving birds at 400mm will just have to
do! Until I win the lottery anyway.
>>Perhaps you should wait for the 400/4DO IS?
Hoo boy, I read the blurb and it sounds amazing, but how much is THAT
going to cost?? And that will be what, 5.6 with a 1.4x? Still not a
2.8...
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
