Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 22, 2003, 2:03 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

It certainly does look good for you.

I'm going into dream land here, but I wish/hope Canon makes a duplicate of the new Nikon lens which is coming out.

A 200-400L f4 IS USM would be great. Still have AF with the 1.4x TC, and a better f-stop at the long end. Wonderful. Would I trade my 100-400 for it? Ouch, tough on the pocket book... I doubt it... but I would have to seriously consider it.

My problem is that 90% of my pictures are at 400mm and beyond, so I haven't spent as much time looking at the shorter lenses. If you'll be <=200mm 50% of the time, below 280 80% of the time... then banking on the TCs make sense... you just won't use the 2x enough to justify the longer lens (at least right now.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2003, 1:04 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Well, I got the 70-200L IS 2.8. I had a bit of time this last weekend to test-drive it. Unfortunately the weather wasn't cooperating. But I did get a few nice shots. Here's my son:

http://www.pbase.com/image/21222314/large

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2003, 6:31 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

No AF problem here! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't you like that f/2.8's DOF?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2003, 10:15 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Hi NHL,

No, the 70-200 is normally spot on. I love the F2.8 indeed, you have to be careful or you'll need a shutterspeed faster than 1/4000 :-)

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2003, 1:28 PM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

People used to pay a fortune for this capability (equivalent of 320 @ f/2.8 )... Think about what you can do with the DOF of a real 300mm f/2.8 (and a beautiful model)! :lol: :lol: :lol:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2003, 4:21 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

According to my pocketbook I already payed a fortune for the 70-200 IS :-) I also got the 1.4x extender with it, but haven't really tested that out yet.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2003, 5:13 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

... A 300mm f/2.8 for a full-frame SLR is on average north of $2.5k (alone)! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Excellent idea to get the 1.4x
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:54 PM.