Canon 70-200 and close-ups

Hi,
I have the Sigma Apo DG 70-300 and really like the "macro" facility,
eepecially with extension tubes. However I am not so happy with it at
maximum telephoto - soft - I mainly do nature photos - birds etc. I am
thinking of upgrading to the Canon 70-200 L f4.
1. Will this lens do close-ups? - I mainly take insects etc and the
distance available with the Sigma is a real benfit - I guess a dedicated
macro lens might not be so suitable for this?
2. Would there be real advantages in saving for the IS model - am I
correct that it is twice as heavy?

Thanks,

Gordon

1. Will this lens do close-ups? - I mainly take insects etc and the
distance available with the Sigma is a real benfit - I guess a dedicated
macro lens might not be so suitable for this?

The 70-200L focuses down to 1.2m with a magnification of 0.21x, which
isn't very close in my book. see
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...ex.asp?specs=1


2. Would there be real advantages in saving for the IS model - am I
correct that it is twice as heavy?

IS will give you advantages if you can't hold a lens very steady or
operate in lowish light conditions. I have the 400mm f5.6L which gives
excellent results but can be a bit awkward to hold if you want a good
depth of field and need slow shutter speeds. As you say IS can add a
lot to the cost and only you can judge if you can justify it, I could
n't justify it on the 400mm. I am also debating as you are between the
70-200 f4 IS or not !.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:30:10 +0000, Gordon MacPherson
wrote:

Hi,
I have the Sigma Apo DG 70-300 and really like the "macro" facility,
eepecially with extension tubes. However I am not so happy with it at
maximum telephoto - soft - I mainly do nature photos - birds etc. I am
thinking of upgrading to the Canon 70-200 L f4.
1. Will this lens do close-ups? - I mainly take insects etc and the
distance available with the Sigma is a real benfit

That EF 70-200L will focus to 3.9 feet.
- I guess a dedicated
macro lens might not be so suitable for this?

I have no idea why you would think that a macro lens won't do closeups
better than this lens.
2. Would there be real advantages in saving for the IS model

Um, yes - IS has real advantages. Whether or not IS is advantageous
*to you* is up to you.
- am I
correct that it is twice as heavy?

The non-IS lens weighs 1.56 lbs; the IS version weighs 1.7 lbs.
(From B&H website)

Thanks,

Gordon
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in message
news:emdqsm$j5k$1@frank-exchange-of- thinking of upgrading to the Canon
70-200 L f4.
1. Will this lens do close-ups?

No.