--- Mark Blackwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> http://www.aviatorsonestop.com
Personally, I'd take the 70-200 2.8 even at higher
cost <g>. But given your terms, I'd probably take the
80-200 2.8. Optically, it's every bit as good as the
70-200 lenses, and AF is virtually as fast. And I'd
prefer the extra stop to the lighter weight FOR MY
USES, which generally involve a monopod and a sporting
event. The drawback to both is that neither is
terribly practical with the Canon 2X converter (the
80-200 won't accept it at all), but the 2.8 with a 3rd
party 2x is still more useful than the 4.0 with
Canon's.
Were I backpacking the lens around, the lighter f 4
lens would probably be my choice.
=====
Bob Meyer
Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
