[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 6/11/01 11:31:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << > Which one is best for you? Only you can tell. > > Warm regards, > Jonathan Kwok > >> > Hi Jonathan, > Great review! I have a follow-up question. Did you ever try Canon 100-400L IS > lens? What's your opinion? How does it compare to 70-200L 2.8 with and > without TCs? > I'm trying to make up my mind if I should stick with a faster lens and TCs, > but no IS, or go for the big zoom with IS? It'd be used on 1n body, mostly > for wildlife and equestrian sports. Or do you think I'd get away with Canon > 75-300 USM IS - I rarely blow up my photos above 11x14inch. > If anyone else on the list has any comments/ideas - please do tell.:o) > Thanks > George > > My web page: > > http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/Yegey/EntrancePage.html Actually, what I'm doing is getting my wife the 70-200 f4L and the 100-400 f4-5.6L for myself. That way, we'll have both available. An expensive solution, but one calculated to keep peace in the family! Skip -- Shadowcatcher Imagery http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
