> Cotty wrote: > 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....
Not that I can add anything more useful than those far more experienced already have, but I recently went through a similar dilemma as Mike (the original poster) did. In the end, I decide on the IS, as, for the amount of money being forked out regardless, I didn't ever want to come up against the "If only I'd bought..." state of mind. I did the same when looking at the 300D (a perfectl good camera in its own right), but came out with the 10D. The IS suits my "style" though as I'm not a regular tripod-user, even when I should be, and I'm most often taking candid photos indoors of people (and pets), but don't like using flash either. Okay, I'm basically just bloody lazy ;-) (I have one filter - a polariser - too, and it only fits on one lens that I rarely use). Anyway, the point is....what were we talking about? Oh yeah, the point is the 70-200 IS is my first ever L-series and "Big White" lens (even if the "big" is not, relative to other Big Whites :-) ). I've a photo of one of my dogs that, while only a snappy to test the lens, is to me astoundly useful/sharp (for my standards) at 1/25th of a second at the 200mm end on my 10D. It was like when I got the first shots from the EF 100/2.8 Macro - I was a bit "Oh, this is what they're talking about". Subsequent photos have confirmed that impression, if not the usefulness of IS in every shot. Heavy bugger though. Oh well, it strengths the schooner-muscles (though the non-IS wasn't going to much differnt there either :-) ). Cheers, Marc (offering pointless comment to the disinterested ever since he discovered this internet thingy <g>) Sydney, Oz * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
