abqnmusa wrote:
too expensive

I use 400mm F5.6 / 300mm F4 IS -- both excellent lenses

No argument there from my end. In fact, there is an even less expensive 300mm f/4 non-IS which competes very favourably with 300 f/2.8 regarding two of its three most coveted qualities: AF drive speed and IQ. Obviously, it is one stop slower, but almost 1/3 of the 300 f/2.8 weight.

800/5,6 IS & 500/4 IS. But I have the 200/2 IS waiting for me in the shop next month.

Only one super-tele in my bag ... um no, caught in a lie, the lens doesn't fit in any of my bags.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

There's just the 300/2.8L IS for now. It might have company if my employment situation improves.

PetKal wrote:
abqnmusa wrote:
too expensive

I use 400mm F5.6 / 300mm F4 IS -- both excellent lenses

No argument there from my end. In fact, there is an even less expensive 300mm f/4 non-IS which competes very favourably with 300 f/2.8 regarding two of its three most coveted qualities: AF drive speed and IQ. Obviously, it is one stop slower, but almost 1/3 of the 300 f/2.8 weight.

Supreme Commander PetKal, you jog memories of my challenge to justify the 300/2.8L IS over the 300/4L non-IS. On the other hand, I needed that beautiful lens case from the 300/2.8L IS to feel the power of a "big white"

Seriously, the 300/4L non-IS is a superb lens and compares well with the 300/2.8L IS.

SR777 wrote:
Seriously, the 300/4L non-IS is a superb lens and compares well with the 300/2.8L IS.

Glad we think alike again, Master SR777.
I have gone thru this sort of thing many times, and I always come to the same conclusion.....when factoring in all of the relevant performance parameters, yet disregarding any price considerations, i.e., one can have any lens one would want, the 300 f/4 non-IS is my best all around lens for BIF.
Having said that, the 300 f/2.8 IS is a very fine lens and I am sure you are enjoying yours.

I hope your emplyment situation improves soon....to the point when you'll be in the "7+" category.

PetKal wrote:

I hope your emplyment situation improves soon....to the point when you'll be in the "7+" category.

Ah, that would be a great feeling, having lived through 20+ layoffs in the last 8 years. By this Christmas, I will either have a year's extension or will be unemployed. If it is the former, the Fedex/ UPS man will show up at the door with an L lens or two (my wife is away during Christmas ).

none here. had 2 in the past (70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8IS). but i dont do too much telephoto stuff. my longest canon is 85L. i do have a pentacon 135/2.8 and a nikkor 80-200/4.5 but those MF lens

SR777 wrote:
PetKal wrote:

I hope your emplyment situation improves soon....to the point when you'll be in the "7+" category.

Ah, that would be a great feeling, having lived through 20+ layoffs in the last 8 years. By this Christmas, I will either have a year's extension or will be unemployed. If it is the former, the Fedex/ UPS man will show up at the door with an L lens or two (my wife is away during Christmas ).


I have spat thrice on the cover of my "EF Lens Works III" book and uttered the secret incantation passed to me by an old fisherman from Fukuoka. That should help ya land a few more L's.

PetKal wrote:

I have spat thrice on the cover of my "EF Lens Works III" book and uttered the secret incantation passed to me by an old fisherman from Fukuoka. That should help ya land a few more L's.

Thank you, Supreme Commander! I will do the same and hope to have the same luck

Do non-Canon lenses count? Say, using alt-glass on your Canon?

Edit: it would be amusing if Henry Posner or Helen Oster (the NY crew) posted that they have 7+

sirimiri wrote:
Do non-Canon lenses count? Say, using alt-glass on your Canon?

Edit: it would be amusing if Henry Posner or Helen Oster (the NY crew) posted that they have 7+

No chans that Henry or Helen will post that. They only post to tell people how fantastic their shops & service are...........

Who the hell has 7 or more??

OK, a wild guess here, a few members come to mind although I might not remember their exact ID names: Voodoo1569, Superblue, TT-M6.

Only the crappy old 200, f1.8

jerrykur wrote:
Only the crappy old 200, f1.8

"Crappy" indeed.
I tried to shoot some DIF with 300 f/2.8 IS this morning. Very bad light, the camera just couldn't track any ducks despite relatively large aperture. My assistant keeps asking: "What are you doing ? Why are you getting all flustered ?".

Fortunately, that was not unexpected. Out comes my 200 f/1.8. Now the camera starts to focus. Not well, lottsa hit and miss, but it is working.
I love my 200 f/1.8s. They let me do stuff very few other lenses can.

PetKal wrote:
OK, a wild guess here, a few members come to mind although I might not remember their exact ID names: Voodoo1569, Superblue, TT-M6.


Do they shoot for magazines or are they just ridiculously rich?

Will Patterson wrote:
PetKal wrote:
OK, a wild guess here, a few members come to mind although I might not remember their exact ID names: Voodoo1569, Superblue, TT-M6.


Do they shoot for magazines or are they just ridiculously rich?
Maybe they own the magazines?

Woefully, now I am being tempted to get my 7th supertelephoto lens with a major purpose of joining the elevated stratum of "7+" FM collectors.
If not, my sense of self-worth, not to mention my photography oeuvre, is bound to suffer a harsh blow.

PetKal wrote:
Supertelephoto Lens ("Big White") definition for the purpose of this survey: any white lens which is provisioned with a rear drop-in filter.

So let us see where we stand on the Canon gear board. My advance guess is that about 20% of the regular members here own at least one supertelephoto lens.
Incidentally, if you own Nikon supertelephoto lenses in addition to Canon ones, please count them as well in the total number of lenses in your possession.
If you own Nikon lenses only, then please go to the Nikon board and start your own poll there.

I would have owned two to three more if Canon hadn't raised their prices, especially the 200 f/2.0 and 800 f/5.6. But I passed them by and saved the money.