>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 got my 70-200 L IS with a 2x converter and I'm glad. This combo is extremely useful and an 'effective' 640mm at f 5.6 is nothing to sneer at. Without the converter, the 70-200 is a little too long for me on the D60/10D for portraiture, I much prefer the 24-70, and I would generally use this. The EF 50mm 1.4 makes a good portrait lens on the 10D, but is still a 50 mm lens. really an EF 85 1.8 would be better, but generally a bit tighter due to the smaller digital sensor. In fact I use an adapted Pentax K50mm f1.2 for those minimal depth of field portraits. I would have thought that your best bet is the 70-200L 2.8 IS should be next, and a converter if you can run to it. It's just so cooool. I would never consider a lens like this without IS again. I came to Canon from Pentax a couple of years ago (before the *ist D came out) and anyone who says IS is a gimmick a) doesn't know what they are talking about, and b) has never used IS, or c) both! The lens I respect most is the 70-200 but the lens I like most is the 24- 70. Looks like you'll have to get both - I hereby enable you ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
