Robert Meier wrote: (edited)
>...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 aperture allows more light from the flash to reach the film. The
>bigger aperture is great for portrait shots. The bigger aperture makes
>autofocusing easier due to the brighter viewfinder and the smaller DOF.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed on more light but never use F2.8 for portraits or the ears and nose
will never be in focus. People who tell you otherwise are amateurs who
have never taken good portraits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All personal preference. I would not try to differ convenience from
versatility. For you the versatility is a fast aperture. For me its the
greater focal length. Since I have the 28-135, the 100-400 covers me just
fine. I also have a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX lens which I think is superb.
Not as fast AF but just as sharp as the Canon and wide open the Sigma is
a tad better (I know that may appear to be blasphemy but its the
truth).
So in the end, convenience and versatility go hand in hand since
what we both appear to be saying is how they apply to our individual styles.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
