traveling on planes, domestically and especially internationally, i decided that bringing the 100-300 2.8 + the 400 2.8 or 600 4.0 was just too much to carry around, and it is sometimes a headache with weight going to places like africa, india and churchill.
So i recently sold my 100-300 2.8. I love that lens, but the 70-200 2.8 Z is that good, and it takes a 1.4x flawlessly and i can get back to that 100-300 range if desired.
robert_in_ca wrote:
big country wrote
Hi, I took the RF 24-105 Z 2.8, RF 100-300 2.8, RF 400 2.8.
From here on out, i'll be doing RF 24-105 Z 2.8, RF 70-200 2.8 Z, RF 400 2.8/or/RF 600 4.0
Not all parts of katmai/alaska are created equal for bear viewing. Two guest had just done the amazon, pantanal, and more as well as lake clark, brooks, as well as other guests have done other parts of alaska and said my bear trip was the best trip they've ever done.
ChrisAttebery wrote
These are amazing. We are in the middle of planning a trip to Katmai and the Inner Passage for next summer. I hope I can get some pictures anywhere near a good as these are.
Would you mind telling us which focal lengths you used? I've been planning to bring a 24-105, 100-500 and an 600 F/4. Awesome images - why the change on the RF 100-300?