James McCauley wrote:
> Still weighing up the pros & cons. Anyone care to offer an > opinion on the > merits of an EOS 100-400L vs. EOS 70-200 f2.8L + x1.4 > converter? (Apart from > the 100-400 having a bit more focal length). > James > ------------- > James McCauley Hi James, It depends on what your application is. At the longer focal lengths the 100-400mm is sharper but you will find it not ideal for studio portraits and closer work where a 70-100mm range with a F2.8 or F4 aperture would be better suited. If you are doing a lot of outdoor work and shoot primarily with the mid apertures the 100-400 is your best bet. If you need a lens for portraits and/or want to have F2.8 to blur your backgrounds then get the 70-200 plus 1.4x TC. I own the 100-400 and opted to buy the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM. Its every bit as sharp as the non-IS version of Canon's 70-200mm F2.8L and the AF is only a tad slower. The benefit is that it is about half the price. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
