On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:06:06PM -0600, Schlake ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I own a 100-400 IS L. It sucks even without a teleconverter (though > it is astoundingly good compared to the cheap (non-IS) 75-300 lens). I was going to disagree vehemently, but reading your entire message I settle on observing it depends on where you put the "sucks" mark. :-) Compared to the 300/2.8 and the like the 100-400 indeed no longer looks good. > Since you have the 75-300 IS, keep that. I own both the 100-400 and the 75-300IS and I'd say your parenthetical statement applies to them as well. The original 75-300IS is optically no better than the non-IS one (as opposed to the current 70-300IS, which I hear is indeed better, although still not as good as the 100-400). If you think the 75-300IS is anywhere near as good as the 100-400, I suspect you either haven't even tried the former or possibly an exceptionally good one _and_ your 100-400 is exceptionally poor. Of course keeping the 75-300IS anyway might be good idea, if only as a light-weight alternative when the 100-400 is too heavy or bulky. I found it unbearably bad after getting the 100-400 though. > If you are looking for 400mm > then the 200mm f/2.8 L seems to work very well with a 2x teleconverter > and will be cheaper than a 100-400. But less versatile - in particular it lacks IS, which makes the combo of rather limited use without tripod. Ditto for the 400/5.6L. Of course if you always use a tripod or shoot in only in broad daylight that's not an issue. > The 75-300 IS can fill in the gaps. I predict that after getting any of the L primes the 75-300IS begins to feel intolerable soon enough and will soon be replaced by one of the 70-200L zooms. :-) > Really though, you want a 300mm f/2.8 IS. It is worth every penny. It is certainly a superb lens, but in a rather different category - not only pricewise, but it's no longer really handholdable. There's no way I could walk a week in the wilderness with it, as I'm just about to do (once again) with the 100-400, for example. If price and hand-holdability are important (as I gather from the original message), the only prime alternative I'd suggest considering is the 300/4L IS with 1.4x TC - but I'd still prefer the 100-400. -- Tapani Tarvainen * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
