> If you like it, you > can always buy a heavier model. > (Or you could try raising the ISO on your 300D. You'd get shorter shutter > speeds, and less evidence of shake.) >
Another option is to shoot RAW format but slightly underexposed at those lighting situations where you know it's too dim to safely handhold but can't, and/or don't want to bump up the ISO too much, as with RAW you can gain 2 stops back in post processing. All of these are stop-gap measures compared to tri-pod, mono pod, or fast f2.8 lens, but sometimes you have to do what you have. As to your original question, there is usually some merit in an L lens in terms of glass quality and lens construction, it's NOT all hype, but you probably won't notice that much difference other than a bit softer and a little less contrast, the 70-200 f4 will also be built better with metal construction, this won't be an issue in the short term, and if you don't mis-treat the lens. Lastly I am pretty certain the 70-200 does not change length when you zoom in or out, so you won't be drawing in dust as compared to the 70-300, an issue that is significant with DSLR sensors. Ken * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
