Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Ok, I'll run over to the gym right away, but will that help me afford all those lenses as well(You'd better hit the gym, btw, as that 400 in particular will test your resolve!)
:ROTFL: Yup... make yourself look like a fitness model, or an attractive gigolo. Sell your "services" for a while, and you'll be able to afford the glass! The side benefit, of course, is that you'll now be able to lift it as well. :thumbup:Ok, I'll run over to the gym right away, but will that help me afford all those lenses as well
Yeah, as if... the girl who calls herself my girlfriend might disagree. She, on the other hand, might be willing to carry the memory cards though. If she gets paid:ROTFL: Yup... make yourself look like a fitness model, or an attractive gigolo. Sell your "services" for a while, and you'll be able to afford the glass! The side benefit, of course, is that you'll now be able to lift it as well. :thumbup:
Lloyd: Great runner photo. Superb composition and PP. I, also, have the old 200-400mm. I've got the old 300mm f/2.8 too. Interesting to see how much better the new versions are? Cheers, Matt.I agree, the 200-400/4 is a terrific sports lens. I've had mine since it was first introduced, and the new one will have to really impress me to justify the cost of the upgrade. I also agree that it shines closer in. Here's an example:
This past week I shot the Boston Marathon (and unfortunately can't post much, until after John Hancock decides what it's using), and there I used (in addition to my 70-200 VRII, which was my primary lens), both the new 400/2.8 and the 300/2.8. Both are simply stellar... I was constantly amazed at what we were getting with them. Not as versatile for action sports, but wow. (You'd better hit the gym, btw, as that 400 in particular will test your resolve!)
Thanks Matt, much appreciated. I had a chance to shoot the new 400/2.8 in Boston, and I have to say that it's impressive (as is it's price tag!). The new 300, however, I can't say that I thought it was significantly better than the prior version.Lloyd: Great runner photo. Superb composition and PP. I, also, have the old 200-400mm. I've got the old 300mm f/2.8 too. Interesting to see how much better the new versions are? Cheers, Matt.
http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
Lloyd: You're welcome. It'll be fun to see more when you're allowed to post them. The photographer in Canada that i went on the bear trip with sold his 300mm f/2.8 and his 200mm f/2. He's using the new 70-200mm and the new 400mm. His testing showed the 70-200 w/TC-E20III to be close enough for most people (me). Doesn't get you to 800mm though. On the other hand, the 200-400mm w/TC-E14II gets you to 560mm (Brad wasn't impressed with the TC-E20 on the 200-400; might be OK for me, though). Most of my bear photos were below 500mm. In fact, the 500mm was too close. Above 500mm, I think you're shooting birds in flight and speed's important. Cheers, MattThanks Matt, much appreciated. I had a chance to shoot the new 400/2.8 in Boston, and I have to say that it's impressive (as is it's price tag!). The new 300, however, I can't say that I thought it was significantly better than the prior version.
So would you say that the IQ of the new 2.8/300 is not good enough? What would be better in terms of IQ at this focal length?Thanks Matt, much appreciated. I had a chance to shoot the new 400/2.8 in Boston, and I have to say that it's impressive (as is it's price tag!). The new 300, however, I can't say that I thought it was significantly better than the prior version.
It wasn't that I didn't think the IQ is good, as it certainly is. It's just that for my purposes, I didn't think it enough of an improvement over the prior version to justify me spending the money to upgrade. I think both the VRI and the VRII versions are terrific lenses. In the long glass, I think the 400/2.8 is the best of the bunch. (Note: I've not shot the 600. I'd love to have one, but it's not really suited to my primary work.) The 200/2 is next, then the 300/2.8 and then the 200-400/4. Actually, I think the 300/4 is a terrific, much underestimated lens.So would you say that the IQ of the new 2.8/300 is not good enough? What would be better in terms of IQ at this focal length?