> When you gain 3 stops with IS, then you have > something like > a 1.0 / 200mm (without the depth of field obviously) > which will clearly make pictures former impossible > possible. I wish Canon & Nikon wouldn't refer to the advantage gained by IS/VR as "stops." It only generates confusion, like the statement above. This lens shouldn't be compared to something like a "1.0 / 200mm." Not only does it not have the shallow DOF of a 1.0, it doesn't offer the viewfinder brightness of a 1.0, and (most importantly) it won't allow the faster shutter speeds that a true 1.0 lens would. Just the opposite, in fact. If an f 1.0 lens allows one to shoot at 1/200th in dim light (just as an example), you'd not only be able to hand hold the body/lens, but you'd have reasonable action stopping ability. With the IS, however, you'd be shooting at 1/25th of a second in the same light. You might still be able to hand hold it, but action stopping ability would be nil. Don't get me wrong, I love IS. It's a great technology. And I love this lens. I'm going to buy one. But it is not the same as, and should not be confused with, a faster lens. Canon should say "allows hand held shutter speeds 3 steps slower" or something like that. ===== Bob Meyer I wish I knew what I know now, when I was younger... http://www.meyerweb.net/epson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
