>>> C'mon Guys and Gals,
>>>
>>> Where's all the questions?..................
>
With all the excitement about the new 70-200 IS, I guess I've still got a
question.
Why did Canon develop, and now have intentions of marketing this lens?
I currently have two IS lenses. On the 100-400 image stabilization is a
real jewel, a godsend for the times when I want to reach out there and get
that homely coyote and don't have a tripod with me. It lets me get away
with such things and gives me a much better chance of getting a decent
hand-held shot at 400mms (or even 560mms with an extender).
The 28-135 is a sweet lens but a relatively slow one. The IS built into
that lens lets me cheat the existing lighting levels sometimes and come away
with a shot that I may not have gotten without it.
But the 70-200 is not all that long at it's 200mm end, and clearly not slow
with it's f/2.8 aperture, so I guess I just don't see a pressing need to
equip it with image stabilization. I have gotten some great low-light shots
with mine and I've also never had a problem with camera shake when I'm out
around 200mms. So why mess around with an already excellent lens? What am
I missing here?
If Canon wanted to introduce image stabilization adding it to an existing
lens, I can sure think of some that would have benefitted much more from it.
Gary Russell
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
