Thanks again, guys! Well, the pelican shots were taken literally on the first day out with the lens and they were actually test shots. Yes, it was actually on the second day since on the first day I did AF and microadjustment test (none needed) at home. I am happy with the performance of the lens. Of course, I selected images that best showcased the IQ that that lens is capable of making. Were they OOF or misframed shots that day? Oh yeah, for sure . The sandhill crane shots were done more seriously but only while driving through that area and we stayed just one night there. Thanks again!
dolina wrote:
I am unsure if you are being sarcastic or not but the sports photogs I know are looking forward to upgrade as this means for the same gear set they will carry less weight on the plane and to various venues. Looking at this another way iit also means you can bring more gear without going overweight.
$11500 will drop after August.
No I was not being sarcastic I agree many will plunk down the $$$ for this thing as it's much lighter and easier to handle.
Just did some testing with the 1.4 series 3 TC..the AF performance is quick..really quick.
Never used a TC on the old 400 but it's ways faster than my 600 when hooked to the TC.
Really impressed with using a TC on it..
it must be nice to afford a lens...priced as much as a new KIA.
photography is increasingly becoming a RICH mans hobby...sad really when the only ones to enjoy these lenses and new cameras are uber rich...hell I cant even afford a new KIA.
The difference between watches and lenses.... If you just need to tell the time, a Timex or similar for approximately $20.00 will do just fine but you cannot buy a lens for $100.00 that can take similar images as any of the Canon Mark II superteles can. Canon superteles will sell faster as there are a lot of buyers unlike buyers of a very expensive, super-duper fancy watch are only few and far inbetween. With other words, Canon superteles are more liquid than watches and they will retain their original value better, too .
AGeoJO wrote:
The difference between watches and lenses.... If you just need to tell the time, a Timex or similar for approximately $20.00 will do just fine but you cannot buy a lens for $100.00 that can take similar images as any of the Canon Mark II superteles can. Canon superteles will sell faster as there are a lot of buyers unlike buyers of a very expensive, super-duper fancy watch are only few and far inbetween. With other words, Canon superteles are more liquid than watches and they will retain their original value better, too .
Don't you know it's the photographer not the gear?
You can get the same image from $100 lens. You just need to walk towards the subject. Nevermind the linebacker accelerating towards your direction.
Just trolling guys... never you mind my crazy rhetoric I picked up from other photo forums that keep hammering the theme that you dont need anything more than a kit lens.
But seriously, on watches there is a much larger market for uber mega expensive timepieces and they do appreciate in value even when the replacement comes out. And judging how often Rolex, Patek, etc advertise in mainstream media there are more buyers of $18-180k watches than $5k-$14k super teles. They are after all jewelry with a function of telling time.
Don't believe me? Check eBay on used Pateks or Rolexs.
dont get me wrong I am kinda lusting over that 200-400 Canon lens,may have to rob a bank...(oh did I say that out loud)lol
and to go with it a 1D-X of course...
. The sandhill crane shots were done more seriously but only while driving through that area and we stayed just one night there. Thanks again!