> -----Original Message-----
> I did. You stated: "Having owned the 80-200 previously (and the terrible
> Tamron 100-400 before that)"
> Tamron made a 200-400 but not a 100-400mm. As to versatility, how
> can a lens
> with a 70-200 range be
> more versatile for average shooting than one with a 100-400mm range?
> Now Robert, please understand that I am not saying this with the tone of a
> curmudgeon so please do not take it as an attack but a query. Having used
> both lenses I find the 100-400mm far more versatile for typical shooting,
> and equally sharp. But for portraits I prefer the F2.8 lens. For me, my
> middle aged eyes have not had a problem with manually focusing either one
> even with a 2x on the 100-400mm which made it an F11 at 800mm.
Yep, you're actually right, the Tamron was a 200-400. That was quite a while
ago I have had this lens. Should have remembered it anyways...:( Anyways, as
I said I do not believe you have to own the 100-400 to judge if a lens is
more versatile for my use. The reason why I say the 70-200 is more versatile
(flexible, all-around) is because in my opinion it can be used in more
situations (more versatile) then the 100-400. From 70-200 you have a fairly
fast lens that allows you to stop action that might not be possible with the
100-400 (assuming everything else is the same including film). Also the
bigger aparture allows more light from the flash to reach the film. The
bigger aparture is great for portrait shots. The bigger aparture makes
autofocusing easier due to the brighter viewfinder and the smaller DOF. The
70-200 can use the cross-sensor on my body which is not the case with the
100-400 (not that I would use AF that much). The 70-200 offers a range of
70(w/o conv)-400(with conv) whereas the 100-400 only offers 100-400 (sounds
like a small difference but when you only have a 17-35, 50 and a zoom lens
then the 70 makes a big difference over the 100) etc. Many of these
advantages are lost when adding a 1.4 or even 2 converter but it still is on
equal footing to the 100-400. So, in my opinion the 70-200 has to offer
more. The only advantages that the 100-400 has is lower cost, lower weight
(counting the converters for the 70-200), and a zoom range of 100-400
without the need to add/remove converters. But this is more a money, weight
and convenience issue then a versatility issue. Of course if you need to
zoom from 100 to 400 a lot within a short time then you probably should get
the 100-400. But if you can live with changing converters to get a range of
either 70-200, 100-280, or 140-400 (only 40mm longer then the 100) then the
70-200 is a better choice. Just my opinion.
Robert
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
