Gary Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > 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.
>From: Terry Danks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I don't understand this point of view at all!!.....................
Terry, I guess my (not very well articulated) point was that the 70-200 is
such a great lens in its original design and one that many pros regard as a
"must have", I was just surprised that Canon chose it to put the IS feature
on it at this time. I would have thought a better candidate would have been
the 35-350 or even the 400 f/5.6 for instance. This is not to say that
image stabilization will not be beneficial to the 70-200 or really *any*
lens, but we are now looking at a lens that will be basically twice the
price of the original, so was it really a good move? I guess time and
marketing stats will tell the tale. Maybe Bart's hypothesis about them not
getting the 400 DO out in a timely way plays into this.
The new 70-200 IS is indeed a beautiful lens; but would I rather have a
pre-owned 300 f/28 L for close to the same price? You bet I would!
Gary
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
