- Messages
- 74
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A dilemma indeed, I like the thought of having more light but does this compensate for the lack of IS on the 2.8? I really cannot justify the mkII 2.8 which has IS unless you can convince me otherwise 
Probably 50/50 between tripod and handheld use for wildlife and hopefully aircraft and motorsport. The latter two will be handheld, I have only kit lens and a cheaper 70-300mm Canon ATM and I really want to sharpen the images up I notice a big difference between these two and my canon 1.8 50mm in terms of sharpness.
Of course the Mk II and a 2x converter may be value for money but I haven't read too many good things about the 2x converter.
Help me decide please.
Probably 50/50 between tripod and handheld use for wildlife and hopefully aircraft and motorsport. The latter two will be handheld, I have only kit lens and a cheaper 70-300mm Canon ATM and I really want to sharpen the images up I notice a big difference between these two and my canon 1.8 50mm in terms of sharpness.
Of course the Mk II and a 2x converter may be value for money but I haven't read too many good things about the 2x converter.
Help me decide please.