PetKal wrote:
However, we are all different, and so are our photography interests and needs.
Yes. But you're still getting it eventually, Peter! We all know you do. Can't you feel the urge yet? Maybe if you try really hard to feel it? Come on, you can do it!
Stoffer wrote:
Yes. But you're still getting it eventually, Peter! We all know you do. Can't you feel the urge yet? Maybe if you try really hard to feel it? Come on, you can do it!
Nils, if I do get it, which is unlikely in the extreme, that would be totally against my better judgement.
PetKal wrote:
Nils, if I do get it, which is unlikely in the extreme, that would be totally against my better judgement.
- not the first time, I guess.
This lens would make a great 70-200 4.0 L - 200-400 4.0 L combo I guess. Shame that the 24-70 4.0 is weak at 50mm. Else those 3 lenses would be everything I wish/need with my hopefully soon coming 6D to be happy ... for less than or just around 15K €!
PetKal wrote:
I wonder if he tested those two lenses at 600mm f/4 or perhaps at 840mm f/5.6 ?
Incidentally, I tested my 200 f/2.8 prime against 300 f/2.8 IS MkI, and I couldn't see much sharpness difference either.
Let me not even start talking about the sharpness of EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro.
Maybe he tested the 200-400 at 400mm f/4 and the 600mm at 600mm f/4 I suspect it was not actually a test, just him saying (in his way) that you don't sacrifice sharpness when using the zoom. Ask him maybe? . I'm really looking forward to seeing a few more independent reviews with high res samples.
Bones74 wrote:
Maybe he tested the 200-400 at 400mm f/4 and the 600mm at 600mm f/4 I suspect it was not actually a test, just him saying (in his way) that you don't sacrifice sharpness when using the zoom. Ask him maybe? Better still, just buy it .
I'm really looking forward to seeing a few more independent reviews with high res samples.
Ralph Conway wrote:
This lens would make a great 70-200 4.0 L - 200-400 4.0 L combo I guess. Shame that the 24-70 4.0 is weak at 50mm. Else those 3 lenses would be everything I wish/need with my hopefully soon coming 6D to be happy ... for less than or just around 15K €!
Ralph ignore the 24-70 f/4L and get the 24-70 f/2.8L, it's so good it's almost worth the money and you'll soon forget the price after a few sessions with it.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ralph ignore the 24-70 f/4L and get the 24-70 f/2.8L, it's so good it's almost worth the money and you'll soon forget the price after a few sessions with it.
It is not the price in main, but the missing IS that keeps me away from the 2.8.
By the way: my comment was mentioned as a joke. 10000 € is far bejond my budget.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Dam that's why I can't afford this lens . I don't buy crap overpriced cups of foam from Starbucks , so that means I can't cut them out and save money
Maybe I need to start smokin . Then I can give up and put the savings to the lens
Lol! ...or you could stop drinking (if you do) and put the money twords the lens. Wait that is a terrible idea!
It seems like a great peice of kit to go along with the 24-70II and 70-200II. Now they just need to announce a 14-24 that is as good as the other 3 lenses.
saneproduction wrote:
If you skip the 24-70II because it is missing IS, YOU are the one missing out.
You never spoiled a handheld shot at ISO 3.200/6.400, 70mm and 1/30th without IS because of your own movement? I did that many times. And many times the 70-200 IS saved me the shot under same conditions (and in some cases even at 200mm and 1/15th).
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I guess that's an advantage to living in a high tax area . If I start smoking 20 a day (seems to be the average around here ) @£7.40 per pack it will only take me it will only take me 4.5 years to buy the lens . . And given how much they put the tax up each year I'm sure I could get that down below 4 years
Sh!t looking at that timescale maybe I should start chain smoking for a month and give up 40+ per day and its looking achievable
This argument depends on what you smoke, of course.
Seriously though, Peter's thoughts usually reflects mines since we both tend to the same proclivities in our shooting., so no need for me to be redundant here.
But if one has a yen for looking at the long term 'investment' side of the 200-400, the financial angle perhaps won't be so prominent, especially if the Yen ( both figuratively and literally )increases.
Ralph Conway wrote:
You never spoiled a handheld shot at ISO 3.200/6.400, 70mm and 1/30th without IS because of your own movement? I did that many times. And many times the 70-200 IS saved me the shot under same conditions (and in some cases even at 200mm and 1/15th).
Not really, use primes once the settings get below 1/125 and 6400. My subjects tend to move or be spontanious.
. I'm really looking forward to seeing a few more independent reviews with high res samples.
