Tamron and Sigma both make good non-IS 70-200/2.8s at much less than the
Canon version. The Sigma is a bit more expensive than the Tamron since
it has Sigma's version of Canon's ultrasonic focusing motor. The Tokina
80-200/2.8 goes back to the film era and has long been discontinued.
Focus is a bit slow in comparison to modern lenses with ultrasonic
focusing motors but it's a fine lens with excellent build quality. You
can probably get a used one for about $350 or so... if you can find one.
I do like the lens but it's just so large and heavy that one is not
encouraged to even carry it around let alone mounted on the camera.
Chuck Norcutt
SwissPace wrote:
> Mine is the non IS version, I thin I would prefer the non IS 2.8 to the
> 4 with IS. The problem I have though is that I like the depth of field
> full frame gives me but the only really fast glass I have is olympus
> witch is manual focus and that I am struggling with that despite
> purchasing the recommended extras.
>
> On 09/07/2010 00:54, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I'm jealous. I'd like an IS version of the 70-200/4 to supplement my
>> mainly unused Tokina 80-200/2.8. Nice lens but... what's that about 500
>> yards from the car? More like 50 feet with that bruiser.
>>
>>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|