On 02/11/07, Rod Hefford, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have owned a 70-200 F2.8 since 2002 and am very impressed with it. >Significantly more impressed than the 28-70 f2.8 I have owned for the >same period but that is a different story. It has worked well on trips >to Africa when paired with a 2X extender. I think, however I could do >with a couple of extra stops and am thinking to trade it in on the >70-200 f2.8 IS. > >So: > >- Will I lose anything in doing this? i.e. does the recent IS version >perform as well as the old non-IS one? > >- Can anyone think of an alternative to doing this which would give a >better result? > >- Lastly, I have an EOS 3 and will upgrade to the upgraded 5D - >whenever it is released, hopefully early next year. Is there anything I >should be considering about the new combination?
I don't know the non-IS version, but I've had the EF 70-200 2.8 L IS for a couple of years now and it's by far one of the best lenses I've ever used. The IS is fabulous, and just plain works. I have the 2X as well, and it does the business when a tripod is out of the question, like leaning out of an upstairs window: <http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/nature/images/pic32.html> or running across a field, pausing for a shot: <http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/reportage/images/pic14.html> and of course any sort of sporting action. But you knew this already. Extra stops? Three, easy. It really makes a big difference IMO. One lens I will be loathe to part with. HTH -- 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 ***********************************************************
