--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm thinking about getting the 70-200f/4; a pearl of
> a lens, and I'm
Agreed !
> wondering if somebody would like to share
> experiences about using it (!!
> NOT the 2.8 version) with a teleconverter. Does it
> works with the Canon
> Teleconverter? Or you have to go with the Tamron?
Don't have a TC but either should work, but with a TC
the effective aperture would go down 1 or 2 stops; may
cause AF hunt;
> BTW, before anyone asks, I'm not getting the
> 70-200f/2.8 IS because it's
> big, heavy and much more expensive than the f/4
> little brother (for about
Agreed. I have always thought that the little brother
needed the IS much more than the elder one: the elder
is faster and can be used with higher shutter speeds
for the same situation that the little brother can.
> the same image quality). I want something that can
> live in my mini
> trekker instead of staying at home. (my 'mini'
> weights already 10Kg ...!)
Weight wise - absolutely delightful - hand hold it all
day, hangs down my neck attached to the camera all day
- no problems there !
Since there is no IS where it is needed mnost, I would
suggest a monopod or a bean bag for the longer shots
in dimmer lighting, as some shots are bound to have
blur in them (at least they do with my hands!)
- Harman
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
