On 24/2/06, Mike Thomas, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have been a member of this list for about 5 minutes....literally. Anyway, >I would like to ask the age old question (sorry if it's been over done) if >opting for the image stabilization feature on the 70-200L is worth and extra >$700. I am looking at "like new", non IS 70-200 L's on Ebay for $900 so I am >having a difficult time justifying such a high price tag for the IS. Let's >face it $700 is a nice chunk of $ towards another lens! Suggestions and >feedback would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.
I once sat contorted for several weeks pondering the same thing. With dire consequences, I went for the IS version. I am so glad I made the right decision. Thing is, if I had decided the other way, I wouldn't have known any different, and so probably would have been just as happy........until I would have tried someone's IS version....and had the largest dose of regret on record. Try before you buy, but buy the IS version. It's worth every single penny. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
