Quote Originally Posted by Colin500


How do people with a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 II IS feel about the IS in the 100-400, isn't it a bit disappointing in comparison to the newer lenses?


How is the f/1.4 or f/1.2 manageable in practice for non-staged shots, given that focus-and-recompose is impossible at those apertures, and the 5D2 has very few AF points, of which only one is really "good", and that MF with 10x live-view would take too much time?


Colin


I'm sorry but ...I had to dig deep in to the post to figure out if you asking a question. So far it seems you narrowed your choices down to an L lens [:P]


I just bought a 70-200 F2.8 II and today was the first day I have taken it out. I came back with 800 pictures from the local Zoo. The lens performed as the lens should, if I had any bad non keepers it was because I was out of the realm of possibility (meaning I was tyring something that was not possible to do). IS seemed to work great. IQ was great. Only one problem. Its a brick to carry around.


The 35mm F1.4 if it is shot at F1.4 at distance closer than 10' with or without low light, you are using a lens that has extreme capabilities. As such it takes much more refining and patience to be successful in those type of situations. The AF of the 5D will be pushed to its limit to nail focus that close with that wide of a lens the closer in you get and tighter it gets. Thats not to say you can't get some really great pics like that, the extreme ability is what makes it fun. That is my experience with it any way.


Rick