Ken Durling wrote:
> something like the 300m F/4 non-IS if I can find one (OOP, right?)
Yes.
> then later get a fast razor sharp 135 f/2L or 200 2.8L
I'm not sure the non-IS 300/4L doesn't fall into the very sharp (if not razor sharp)
category itself. Mostly you're not getting the big maximum aperture compared to the
other two you mention, rather than giving up image quality. BTW, if I can sell enough
of my FD gear, the 135/2 is next on my list. :-)
> I can't see affording a 300 f/2,8 anytime soon.
Me neither--that one was definitely an unanticipated, one-time thing.
> siginificant. Is there some inherent instability in the IS system
> which downgrades the lens, or are they really different optics?
Different optical formula. The IS versions of the super-teles (at least the 300/2.8L)
are said to be *more* sharp than the non-IS versions.
Craig
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
