>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/17/01 01:25PM >>>
>>>Well just for kicks lets see how everyone feels. You have a choice of a new
>>>70-200 4.0L or a used 80 200 2.8L for about the same money. Which would
>>>you take and why?
>>>Mark Blackwell
Mark,
You have to come up with your own conclusions. It all depends on what sacrifices you
want to make. When I bought the 70-200 2.8L I thought about the following things over
the 70-200 4L:
-I did want the extra stop to blur backgrounds, although some say it is not a major
difference.
-The 4L is MUCH lighter.
-The 2.8L comes with a tripod collar, a $160 or so purchase on the 4L. I would never
want to shoot on a tripod without this now that I have it.
-The 4L has an odd size filter ring. 67 or something. The 2.8L used the same filter
size as my 20-35 (non-L) and 28070 2.8L.
If I was traveling a lot I think I may go for the 4L because of the weight. I have
heard that it is just as sharp. I'm sure others will give you more to think about.
After all that, I love this lens. It performs wonderfully and is complemented bu the
28-70 2.8L.
John
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
