Tenn.Jer wrote:
I'll post a dose of reality for Peter; here is how "normal" people see woodies, just before they fly away...
With a 500 f/4L and 1.4 extender...
Jerry
Jerry, that's the way I used to see them too before I got this damned 1DX.......too much "reach" in that camera, you see.
...well thank you Jerry and Peter, however I think this devil's pidjin is best and most vociferously expressing my feelings about the constrictions forcing artistic license with the 7D...
John_T wrote:
...well thank you Jerry and Peter, however I think this devil's pidjin is best and most vociferously expressing my feelings about the constrictions forcing artistic license with the 7D...
Whattsa matta with 7D, John ? The experts here love it for its "reach".
I've always been intrigued by cemeteries and fall colors; must be the Hallowe'en connection or something...
The first was made with my 135L, and the second with a rented 200 f/1.8L that just came today.
(I'm trying to get it out of my system before I succumb to the pull of gearlust and purchase one of those that keep appearing on the B&S forum...we'll see how this works...)
Tenn.Jer wrote:
I've always been intrigued by cemeteries and fall colors; must be the Hallowe'en connection or something...
The first was made with my 135L, and the second with a rented 200 f/1.8L that just came today.
(I'm trying to get it out of my system before I succumb to the pull of gearlust and purchase one of those that keep appearing on the B&S forum...we'll see how this works...)
Jerry
Go for it, Jerry.....it's a killer lens.
Nice and diverse shots, the lightnbing is special.
Thanks, Peter... That's really NOT what I need to hear. It's because of some thread you probably started that I own a 80-200 2.8L - not that I regret that, I've loved it; but it was $700, not $3700.
That's really NOT what I need to hear. It's because of some thread you probably started that I own a 80-200 2.8L - not that I regret that, I've loved it; but it was $700, not $3700. 