> > Well, it's a tough choice, isn't it! Either have the 70-200 w/TC's
> > (1.4 OR 2x ) and have the maximum number of possibilities if not
> > convenience, including a nice fast 200 (I like doing "social candids"
> > which this would be perfect for)
> >
> > OR the flexibility and the IS of the 100-400. I suppose you could
> > factor in the option of using a 1.4TC on the 100-400, and have a
> > 560/f8 lens, too, useful on bright days.
>
> It is a VERY tough choice, speaking as one who made it just a couple months
> ago :) I need the 400mm reach for soccer and football, so in the end there
> were 2 factors that steered me to the 100-400: the slower autofocusing of
> the 70-200 with 2X TC, and the fact that only the center focusing point is
> effective, thus rendering ECF inoperable (I can't remember if this is the
> case with the EOS 3, but I know it is with the Elan 7E). I could have gotten
> by without ECF, but I need the fastest AF possible and wouldn't want to be
> limited to the center point.
>
> Kim
It's a tough choice all right. I used both lenses for six months before
I decided on the 100-400. In a 13"x19" print I could not see the
difference in sharpness with my eyes. I just used the 100-400 five
times as much as the 70-200. I mostly shoot wildlife and birds. The
100-400 with IS engaged works wonderful on a beanbag on a car window.
After 30 years in photography and now being able to afford any lens I
want, I discovered that the sharpest lens is not always the best. For
what I do, a 100-400 lens makes perfect sense. I still miss my 70-200
but I would not switch. Maybe the much awaited 28/50/70-400 f/2.8 L DO
IS T/S lens will be even better.
Ray Amos
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
