HI Guys,


Thank you for your responses.


Is the weight of these lenses even a real issue?


Lets start from the top...


Sean that was your initial advice and I wanted to give you props for that. Sound Advice Sorry for the name misspell


HDNitehawk - The 70-300 L is too slow. I'm with Sean (Of course, if he's using the extender with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, he'd essentially have a 280mm f/4 lens on the long end. If he's using the 70-300 f/4-5.6, he'd be losing a stop of light at the comparable focal length when not using the extender.) Without the extender I would have a 2.8 between 70-200 which the 70-300 L couldn't do. I do like the weather sealing and IS though.


John - I agree with you about not going lower than f/2.8, but you hear of the 70-200 f/4 Is being so highly regarded I thought is was worth throwing out there. I am considering the f/2.8 IS but am nervous about buying one used and haven't seen one on Canon's refurb. site forever. The 100-400 4-5.6 sounds good but the slow aperture doesn't. I could reach the same length with a 2x extender at the cost of some IQ and no Auto focus.


Joel - After reading Bryan's review of the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma I wasn't too interested in them anymore. Although at photography-on-the.net/.../index.php they rave about the lens. Any contrary thoughts would be interesting.


I feel better about trying to land a 70-200 IS 1rst then non IS. Thanks for your thoughts,


Brett