On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:47:41 -0400, you wrote/replied to: >I just bought an EOS 10D with a 16-35/f2.8L (which is a lot of fun), and I >am considering my next lens. Having seen all the writing about the triplet >"L"s, I am considering the 70-200/f2.8L IS and either the 1.4x or 2.0x >converter. Another option would be the 100-400L IS. What would be the next >best choice for portraits and wildlife? > >I also have the 28-135 IS that I bought a while ago on my EOS 5. I will >eventually get the 28-70 f2.8L to round out the quiver.
10D lenses: Portraits: 50-70mm Wildlife: never too long 400+ is good All depends on style. For me, IS is a must. Both 70-200 and 100-400 are big heavy lenses for portrait work. You might like a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 for this work. I love my 100-400L IS. I can't see using a 70-200 that much, those focal length are kind of in the middle of what I do, and pretty much covered by the 100-400. Only you can decide what you need. -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com/ Standard Poodles for fun BMW motorcycle for pleasure * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
