Originally Posted by Tony Printezis
Tony, I stand corrected, I thought the 24-70 (2002) was three or four years newer than the 70-200 2.8 IS (2001). I spent so much time comparing the 24-70 vs. the 24-105 (2005) I confused the release dates of the two. It does make sense that new and reworked L's will incorporate IS. But as much as I (and many others) would like the 24-70 IS, I think countering some gaps with Nikon -- like their 200-400 f/4 are more of a priority to Canon than our desires.
Originally Posted by Tony Printezis
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.
Chris