this is bouncing around in quite a few threads at the moment, but what the heck...
as is already stated, the 70-200 is the favorable lens. (here comes my obsession with IS
) for $50 more, one can go with the L glass, and not the 75-300, but at a cost of losing the IS
feature and considerable focal length.
although with the 1.4x TC
, the AF
apparently isn't lost, quality is put at risk, i would think. and you still don't have IS
. so what's the big huge difference between a quality-depreciated 70-200 non-IS
, and a 75-300 IS
? i'm also interested in this, and still tyring to sort things out.