> I've compared the older 70-200 2.8 with > the older 2x with the 100-400, and found > results (at 400mm) to be indistinguishable.
Bob, Good point. If you are comparing charts, the 70-200 wins. But comparing actual photos, it's impossible for me to tell the difference, even with powerful reading glasses up close. I own both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 100-400 IS and can not tell the difference as far as sharpness of the print goes. If I had to give up one of these lenses, I would let the 70-200 go. FOR ME, the 100-400 is more versatile. I shoot only from a stable tripod and the extra 200mm at the end offers me a lot more than the 30mm on the front. I'm a telephoto guy. If I were a wide angle guy, it might be different. I must say that I like the IS on the shorter lens. It is effective on a tripod and helps 3 stops instead of 2. I have used it a couple times in heavy winds when nothing else worked. I think each lens has it's place and do not plan to get rid of either. When I choose one, sharpness has nothing to do with the choice. Ray Amos - All outgoing e-mail is scanned for viruses. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
