View Single Post
      05-06-2011, 12:18 PM   #277
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,938
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
Consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS seriously. It's IQ is as good as the f/2.8, it's way lighter and smaller and it costs considerably less. With the excellent high-ISO performance of today's bodies, it's becoming the preferred choice of those that need to carry it on a second body as they lug a beastly 500mm or 600mm through the woods, into the swamps and up the mountains to shoot wildlife and birds in the wild.

There's a place for an f/2.8 in the kit of many, like a wedding photographers, but it's unneeded bulk and weight for many (most?) of us.

Dave
Dave, would you say the IS version is worth the extra cash over the non-IS? It's about double the cost.
__________________
Mark
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote