On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:29:11 GMT, "Tony Spadaro" wrote:

> No, he couldn't buy a Canon 300 f2.8 for that price but he could get the
>100-400 IS for about 100 dollars more, or the 300 f4 IS for about 300
>dollars less. The stop smaller would mean a much lighter lens to carry while
>the Image Stabilization would allow for stady shots with pretty slow shutter
>speeds - and both of those lenses are auto focus.
> I'm not fond of carrying heavy weight around so the 300 f4 IS is on my
>short (and light) list. A lot depends on what new IS lenses Canon announces
>at Photokina - I'm still hoping for a 70-200 F4 IS. I might be nuts, but I'm
>hoping anyway.

Good points. And I like your "wish lens" - this, or maybe
a 70-250mm f3.5 or f4 constant-aperture stabilized lens,
would be an ideal "light" tele...