> Johnny Johnson wrote:
> My medium telephoto (70-200mm f2.8) is an IS. It takes nice, sharp
> pictures but, as Moose said, you may pay a weight penalty for the IS
> (at least with some Canon glass). I shoot it off a tripod most of
> the time so I'm thinking about retiring it and replacing it with the
> f4.0 version without IS at less than half the weight.
To clarify a little though, the 70-200 2.8's weight is more a
product of the glass and construction than the IS. It's non-IS
predecessor is of of only marginally less weight:
2.8 - 2.9 lbs/1,310g
2.8IS - 3.24 lbs/1,470g
(above taken from Adorama website).
Both 2.8's are fairly hefty items (I've heard that the IS is
good for hand-holding with this lens when you start to get
the burning-shakes in your forearms ;-) ).
As you point out, the 70-200 f4 (for which there is no IS option),
weighs in at a much more cartable 1.55lbs/705g. I probably should
have, but the 2.8IS cried out, and I heard it's call. :-) Depending
on situation, IS has worked nicely and impressively at times for
me. I think it was an acceptably (to me) sharp picture at 200mm
on my 10D at 1/15th (I was crouched into some extra, low centre
of gravity stability too). IS on the f4 would have been good.
Cheers,
Marc
Sydney, Oz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|