I completely agree with Les. The 70-200 2.8L, either version, is a
great lens.
I have to echo Les' comments about "almost what I want/need" money.
Every dollar you spend on these lenses puts you further away from the
lens that will do the job the way you want.
Bob
fotofx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hey Russ,
My suggestion is to save your pennies and get the 70-200 2.8L (with or without IS) used.
If you keep buying lenses that won't *exactly* fit your subject matter you will have spent the cash over time.
The Non IS version can often be found on fredmiranda.com, sportsshooter.com, photography-on-the.net/forums and photo.net for sale around
$800.00. This is usually because owners of the non IS version are upgrading to the newer IS version and need to supplement that purchase.
IS works fantastic, and it does allow for shots not really possible prior to it's invention. It renders images sharp when used properly.
I once took a macro shot of a mushroom, after sunset with a 300 2.8IS w/ extension tube hand held, razor sharp. ISO 100 fuji.
Contact my friends at borrowlenses.com and set up a rentsl.
Les Baldwin
Foto/SFX
--
/////
( O O )
--------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Woman on trip with photographer always gets exposed............
