>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
I would get the 70-200/4L and start saving for the 70-200/2.8L
and at the end keep them both. I find them that different lenses.
Or even better (=cheaper): I might get both lenses which you
suggested, for the same price as a new 70-200/2.8L.
If both 70-200/4 and 2.8 together gets too expensive then I would
buy 100/2 and later 200/2.8L, both second hand, after getting the
70-200/4L.
Why?
- I wouldn't shoot very often at f2.8
- f4 version is much lighter so I would take it (or 100-400) always
with me (when I take more than one lens).
- any of 85/100/135L primes are faster and I could still carry
the 70-200/4L AND at least one of the primes IF I would like/need
(I mean weight-wise).
- I wouldn't probably miss tripod mount with the f4 version. With
the f2.8 lens it is a must. So f4 is easier to pack as well.
But it all depends what and how you shoot. And how much you want to
own (and show) a f2.8 lens. ;-)
Vesa
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
