--- Bob Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I've seen the lens and inspected it and it looks real good. Now > this guy > is also selling his EF 400 f/2.8 L for the same price. The glass is > perfect > on both lenses but the 400 is not so good on the body (Only a fair > wear on > the tripod mount ring). Which one would you favour?
Well, I think that depends a lot on what you want to use it for. A main consideration is the weight. The 400/2.8 at almost 6kg is about twice as heavy as the 300/2.8. If you intend to bring that lens on long strenous hikes I would think twice about buying the 400/2.8. But if you need a long fast lens i.e. for wildlife etc and you don't have to drag it over many km then the 400/2.8 is probably a better bet. Even more so as both lenses' optics are perfect. If you use it for sports the 300/2.8 with a 1.4x might give you more flexibility. But I guess you knew that all already. Personally, I would get the 400/2.8. For long hikes I would leave it at home, though. But then that's no big deal as for that I usualy use more my wide angle lens and macro lens. Robert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
