Quote Originally Posted by photosurfer


Quote Originally Posted by Keith B


I also noticed it sucked up some dust. It didn't seem to affect image quality though.



Really? that seems unexpected from a lens that doesn't extend at all for zooming or focusing.



It still has parts that move in and out internally and it isn't sealed. The mount also fit very loose on my 40D.


Maybe sucking isn't the right term, but accumulating is.








Quote Originally Posted by Alan


I think that you'll do well with the 70-200 f/4. I've used the IS version (with IS off) for weddings (both with and without flash) and it's excellent. Much lighter than the 2.8, which I also have used.


Look at the varied opinions on this lens: Keith B did portraits with it, but couldn't wait to get rid of his. Yet, Roger demonstrated how excellent this lens is for portraits.


Can you see how these opposing views might make people go crazy???



I didn't say I preferred it for portraits. It was only good for stuff that was purely strobe lit. You had to use higher shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake and therefore not allowing for ambient light to create atmosphere. If you shot at lower shutter speeds, you negated it's sharpness. This made this lens nearly useless to me and without IS I could not find enough uses to justify ownership, therefore I could not wait to get rid of it.