mulo
macrumors 68020
Haha...thanks for giving me my daily smile.IS has saved me on many occasions, but I do acknowledge that it is useless for a lot of people.
and too expensive for a lot of people too.
I am torn. f/4 IS or F/2.8 no IS
- Thread starter mulo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and too expensive for a lot of people too.
steveash
macrumors 6502a
I wouldn't swap my f2.8 70-200 for the F4 IS but would agree it is a hefty lump. I went for the 24-105 f4 for the IS and 12 months swapped it for the f2.8 because I'd rather have the extra stop off the depth of field.
I'm currently in China and in an attempt to travel light(ish) I have instead of the 70-200, brought my 135mm f2 and a 1.4x teleconvertor. The 70-200 would have been less hassle but too big and heavy to lug around everywhere.
I'm currently in China and in an attempt to travel light(ish) I have instead of the 70-200, brought my 135mm f2 and a 1.4x teleconvertor. The 70-200 would have been less hassle but too big and heavy to lug around everywhere.