I do have 2.8 lenses but they are Tokinas (28-80 and 80-200). I can't
afford the Canon 2.8s or even the f/4s either. They work well in
available darkness but they are a lot of weight to carry around. I
would very much like the 70-200/4 IS and the 24-105/4 IS for day time
shooting. But either one would cost me more than the sum total I have
invested in Canon mount lenses counting both Tokinas and both Tamrons
(20-40 and 24-135)
But remember your goal was to try the 70-200/2.8 for focusing improvement.
Chuck Norcutt
C.H.Ling wrote:
> Yes, that is a good lens but I prefer the 70-200/4 IS, it has the same or
> better optical quality and much lighter. Anyway, both are too expensive for
> me and I enjoy using OM lenses more. I wish I had carried the OM 50-250
> instead of the Tamron 70-300 so that I had not rely on the AF.
>
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Mike>
>
>
>> Danger, Will Robinson.
>> I have read that is Canyon's vacuum cleaner lens. That sucking sound
>> is your cash leaving your back pocket and going into Canyon's account.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Next time I will borrow my friend's 70-200/2.8 IS and try it out.
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>> --
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|