john_clark17

Hi,

<p>

I was just wondering if anyone can substantiate the current rumours

I've heard about an EOS Pro, to replace the 1n? I have a 5 and an

older 1000Fn, and I'd like to replace the 1000Fn with whatever is

coming next. I'd buy a 3 but for the fact I believe it to be the

replacement for the 5 and would rather hang back and see what

Canon does. Nevertheless, I'm keen to find out if anyone knows

anything.

<p>

My main problem with the 3 and 1n is the transport noise, which

I've found to be noticably higher than the 5. Then again, I'd

like a 100% viewfinder and the more rugged build of the 1n, but

with the more advanced focusing and EC of the 3.

<p>

Sigh. Maybe I'm hoping for too much.

If you are truly serious about getting the best shots, buy the L.

Although I haven't owned the 70-200 variants, I have had both of

these lenses in the 28-70 guise. Optically they are so close it's

not an image-quality issue - the Canon perhaps has the edge but

maybe that's wishful thinking - the Sigma is bitingly sharp also.

Build quality & the value of FTM & USM are all it comes down to;

at this price, do you want to be thinking about resale values?

Even if you buy the Sigma, throw it away in 5 years, you've

probably lost less than the depreciation on the Canon. Buy the

lens for use, not for resale - buying no lens is the best answer

for resale value ;-)

<p>

My own story is that I bought the EX, it was a great lens, allowed

me to take some *seriously* razor sharp images, but ultimately

its manual focus seized up and I went for the L, which is an

equally sharp lens but built better, with a better balance (on my

EOS 5) and with USM and FTM. Nice. Worth 4x the price? Probably

not, but then over the lifetime of the lens, this shouldn't

matter too much.