> > "Patrice Chiniara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "Not having IS on the 28-70 f/2.8L is what is keeping me from getting one... "
I am surprised at the anti-IS statements here . . . first I thought they were meant in humour! I consider IS to be Canon's crowning achievement to date . . . the most significant difference between Canon and "all the rest," in binoculars as well as 35mm gear. I too switched from Nikon to Canon SPECIFICALLY for IS. The lack of IS on the EF28-70/2.8L is also the reason I do not have one although I'll admit to a long-standing prejudice against zooms for reasons I will not go into here. While I find it obvious enough that any added complexity results in a product more likely to fail with time, I have had no trouble with IS yet. Perhaps in the future I will. Even if I do, the feature is so useful that I will pay a price in long-term reliability to have it. I consider that reasonable. If durability were the only concern, I'd of stayed with my F2 bodies and MF focus lenses. To each his own I guess but I'll admit to not being able to fathom why any photographer would prefer not to have IS available on occasion at least. I appreciate it does nothing to stop subject motion and it does make it difficult to track moving subjects. That's fine . . . that is why the off switch is there but, most of the time my IS in on! More IS lenses, please!!! -- Terry Danks Wildlife and 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 ***********************************************************
