>
> Gary Russell wrote:
> > Why did Canon develop, and now have intentions of marketing this lens?
> ...
> > 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 don't understand this point of view at all!! Sure, it is more compelling to equip
longer and slower lenses with IS but that hardly means the feature is not useful on
any focal length or speed lens. We are always faced with conditions where we need a
bit more light or a bit better DOF. I think the 70-200 will be a very successful
addition to the line up but I personally have no use for this FL range so am not
excited about the news. I sold off my 80-200 because I so
rarely used it.
If the 28-70 2.8L were offered with IS, I'd feel a compelling urge to reach for my
wallet! I wish ALL my lenses had IS! I switched from "the other brand" to Canon when I
wanted to buy a 300/2.8. I could not fathom why I should lay out that kind of money
and not get IS when Canon was offering the lens at a comparable price incorporating
this exceedingly useful feature. I have since bought the 600/4 L IS as well.
Bring on more IS lenses . . . in fact make 'em ALL IS!!
I hope the 180mm 3.5 MACRO is next for hand-held butterfly photography.
--
Terry Danks
Nova Scotia, Canada
Wildlife & Nature Photography
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
