On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: best.

Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
my 7D's).

Bob