Fascinating discussion. Certainly the 70-200/2.8L IS is a lens I've considered. The versatility is very attractive. That aside, how does it compare to the 135/2L at the same FL and f-stops?
75% of the shooting I do is people, concerts and landscapes. The other 20% is wildlife - birds specifically, and migrating geese and cranes in particular. (5% for macro) One doesn't always want the longest lens for these, as sometimes the sweeping view of the flock is the best. Another argument for the 70-200. But when I'm out now, I have an nFD 400mm f/4.5 (on a T90) , often with the 1.4x on a tripod and shorter lens over my shoulder. But this is all FD - I'm very much wanting to convert this kit to EOS - film and digital. (I have an Elan 7 and a 30D, soon an EOS 3) So the EF 400mm f/5.6 is high on my list. I'm very much more inclined to trust primes, as good as modern zooms have gotten, so even though I know the 70-200/2.8 could convert to the same - plus IS - with a 2xTC, I'm slow to make that move because of my prime prejudice. I look and look at images from the 100-400 IS, and they just don't look as good to me as the ones from the 400/5.6L. At least not on the web, which is some indicator. So I have two very different needs to fill, and a limited budget. I put the 135/2 and the 400/5.6 in roughly the same price bracket. Do you think I'm wrong that the 70-200/2.8L IS is not really a solution that could cover these two primes? Ken * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
