molson Online Upload & Sell: On
|
OwlsEyes wrote:
I saw one on the BS board here for less than $7500... yeah that's a lot of money, but it's a heck of a bargain. If you shoot wildlife (want to shoot wildlife), the only reason not to buy the 200-400L is price and weight. If the price is fine, then you need to decide if weight matters. Since you've been shooting mirrorless, one (but not all..) of the motivation of leaving DSLR's is weight reduction. The 200-400L is a beast, as I believe it is about 2/3 of a pound heavier than your former 500mm lens.
cheers,
bruce
A little heavier than the 500L IS II, a little lighter than the 500L IS I had previous to that... and a lot lighter than the Pentx 645 600mm f5.6 I used for a couple of years.
It's also just a bit heavier than the Nikon 200-400mm f4G VR (sans teleconverter) that I've used extensively - except the Canon focuses all the way to infinity.
|