Hi Chris,


Quote Originally Posted by Chris White
I think countering some gaps with Nikon -- like their 200-400 f/4 are more of a priority to Canon than our desires.

Sure, a Canon 200-400 f/4 would be great... but how many folks will be able to spend $6,000 (what the Nikon costs) on it? I know I wouldn't be able to justify it... which brings up a good point: I've always wondered whether Canon make more money out of selling a few very expensive lenses, or many cheaper lenses. I'd assume it's the latter, given all the EF-S lenses they have recently introduced. But they also introduced the two new TS lenses and I can't see them selling many of those. So, who knows!


Going back to the 200-400 f/4, I'd actually be happy with a 100-300 f/4 IS (like the Sigma) for around $2,000. :-) And I'm with Brandon here: maybe an ultra-wide to go against the Nikon's 14-24 would be a good target for Canon (and this would be the "killer app" for me to move to FF, as I love shooting wide with my 10-22 on my crop bodies). But, the 16-35 II is very new, so I can't see it geting replaced it very soon.


Jordan, sorry for hijacking your thread!


Quote Originally Posted by Chris White
Well said! In the end no matter how much we all respect each others input before we drop $1000 plus, it really comes down to what we are going to be doing with our gear.

Totally. It's disappointing when fans of one lens treat fans of the other lens like idiots ("why wouldn't you want IS?" or "why wouldn't you want f/2.8?"). The answer is "cause I don't need it the way I shoot!".


Quote Originally Posted by Chris White
Tony, I stand corrected,

And I stand corrected too, Chris. Yes, if you're shooting moving subjects, IS will not help. I had immediately thought you were referring to stationary shooting, given this is how I shoot...


Tony