Bob, At times in my career I have had 300 2.8's and 400 2.8 and I can say with out any reservations at all that if I had to have only one long lens it would be the 400 2.8. That lens is so sweet and when you want long a 400 seems just right. If you shoot sports the 400 is soooo sweet to shoot from one end of the basketball court to the other with. I used to do that with a 300, but after getting the 400 I liked it so much better. Much tighter! I love it!
For football it is awesome, a 600 f4 with a 1.4x and then a 400 with out the TC. Both very necessary lenghts, esp if shooting NFL. That lens and an 70-200 on an extra 1 body are a perfect pairing, IMHO. The 400 is a lot heavier, but put it on a mono pod and it works just fine. I have never owned an EOS 400, I am still shooting my old FD 400 2.8L on and F1. It still works and I just can't justify dropping the kinda cash the upgrade will call for. Guess if I still shot NFL and NBA every weekend I'd upgrade but those days are in the past for me now. But whichever lens you get you will love it. Both are really excellent optics. The 300 with a pistol grip on it is so easy to hand hold. Is really the way that lens was meant to be used, I think. :) -- Harrison McClary Harrison McClary Photography http://www.mcclary.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once upon a time Bob Turner 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? * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
