So you would expect from it's regular version (without IS), right ? Frankly, suspecting I have troubles with my 28-135 IS due to possibly faulty IS, I would afraid a bit to invest 1.6k$ in 70-200 IS just trying to imagine what would turn the repair of it should it brake down (and after the issue of 28-135 I'm quite unsure in the reliability of this facility over the years). What do you think ?
BTW, Tim, did you purchase the lens from B&H or similar source ? USA version or imported ? If that was USA version, did the regular USA warranty honorable in Australia ? Regards, Alex Z -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-eos@;a1.nl]On Behalf Of Tim Munro Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EOS 70-200/2.8L against it's IS brother ----- Original Message ----- From: "Logan Reinwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was reading this thread and was surpised since what I heard when the IS > version show up is that the performance are a bit lower than the perf of the > non IS version: the olfd version is better!.................... The other issue with the newer version was claimed faster AF performance, which was one of the features that attracted me. As for optical performance, the new lens is just fabulous at all apertures. I'm looking at an article right now which I shot for a motorcycle magazine and it features a full page colour reproduction of a bike coming at me on the back wheel that I shot at f2.8 which is as crisp and sharp as anything you are likely to see (any aussies out there can check it out in the December edition of Two Wheels - in the newsagents now). I think either lens will surpass the optical requirements of most of us. Regards, Tim www.timmunro.com.au * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
