> >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.
>
> Very good points, and pertinent to my needs as well. Slow autofocus
> is not desirable when tracking flying/running birds. Or fleeting
> human expressions. I don't use ECF, but nonetheless...
>
> Ken Durling
13 months ago, I spent 5 days at Ding Darling in FL shooting shore
birds. Almost every photographer there, along with their big lens on a
tripod, had an EOS body with a 100-400 around their neck. Even the
photographers using the big Nikon lenses had a 100-400 IS for their
"Birds-in-Flight" lens. Also Arthur Morris has switched to that lens
from his 400 prime.
Ray Amos
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
