This is a shot of my twin brother taking a shot of me with his old Canon F1. I'm using my not-quite-as-old Nikon FE2 with the crappiest lens I have ever owned (a Vivitar).
brianpoulsen wrote:
I want to tag along on this wonderful thread!
Taken during the 2005 Ice Hockey Championships in Austria.
1D MkII with 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and hands and 1D MkII with 300mm f/2.8 around the neck on both guys.
One of them is a Reuters photographer I know for sure.. Not sure about the other guy.
John--G wrote:
It's nice to see the big guys having to shoot through the glass too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well.. Of course we could sit up higher, but that way you couldn't get ice level shots. We were all placed in two corners on the same side as the TV cameras. There was only one place to stand at ice level with no glass, and that was used by TV. A GettyImages guy was there aswell. The glass wasn't too bad actually.
brianpoulsen wrote:
What lenses are in that photo?
White Lenses in back:
70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 300mm f/4 IS, 400mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8 IS, 600mm f/4 IS, 300mm f/2.8 IS (ARE THERE REALLY TWO OF THEM? I'm not sure about that one. )
Front: 85mm f/1.2, 1.4x II extender, 2x II extender, Wimberly Gimbal head.
70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 300mm f/4 IS, 400mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8 IS, 600mm f/4 IS, 300mm f/2.8 IS (ARE THERE REALLY TWO OF THEM? I'm not sure about that one. )
Unless the ones pictured are older models, surely the second and third ones are wrong.. Judging by the pictures on the Canon USA site..
tinyblob wrote:
Unless the ones pictured are older models, surely the second and third ones are wrong.. Judging by the pictures on the Canon USA site..
No, that looks right. You rarely see them from this angle. And there is only ONE version of the 300/4IS and 400/5.6.
Ohhhh, the hood extends!
I was looking at the photographs and thinking "where's that big white gap come from?", then found the photos here.
Feel a bit dumb
Man, two 300 f2.8's in that picture. I'm struggling with the decision to buy one! When you just shoot for fun & hobby it's a pretty expensive lens. Seems to be the ultimate sports lens though, and that's what I like to shoot most. I gotta get one.....
Save some money Garylv and get the sig 120-300 2,8. You get the zoom and reach with 2.8 and a lot less money. I love mine for sports and can't see trading it for the canon. I played with maybe getting the 400 and still can't see putting this lens down.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Save some money Garylv and get the sig 120-300 2,8. You get the zoom and reach with 2.8 and a lot less money. I love mine for sports and can't see trading it for the canon.
, have. I have a friend that is the Editor for the paper in Seattle and he lets me use any of the pool lenses. If money grew on trees maybe, but I must be wise with the green.
, have. I have a friend that is the Editor for the paper in Seattle and he lets me use any of the pool lenses. If money grew on trees maybe, but I must be wise with the green.
