Messages

31

Macro / Re: Gross me out

« on: May 07, 2012, 04:07:43 PM »

YIKES !       

32

Software & Accessories / Re: Issues with Black Rapid?

« on: April 28, 2012, 08:58:04 PM »

Works for me.  Different strokes for different folks!

33

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 23, 2012, 10:52:51 AM »

Being a towering 5'8", that is a GREAT idea.

34

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 23, 2012, 09:02:20 AM »

Hey gang, as part of the "oh, by the way" discovery process, now I need to consider a bag or pack to tote one of these monsters to/from the ball fields.


Think Tank Galss Taxi looks good, but sure there are many more option out there


What do you use?  Do you keep strap attached?


Thanks, Dan.

35

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 20, 2012, 09:44:44 AM »

They look like some type of recycled plastic material.  looking for my (Dutch to English) translator button to read the description.  Fortunately, I do not do much tropical travel, but moisture is everywhere.
 
@D.Sim - did your sister ever figure out you were the "borrower"?  I have two sisters and that would have been an interesting "discussion".

36

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 20, 2012, 07:35:27 AM »

@ D.Sim & xROELOFx - thanks for the feedback.  More things to consider in the process.  Leaning toward the 300 due to size and IS.  Fortunately, not a pressing timeline, so I can change my mind a few more times.

37

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 20, 2012, 07:30:12 AM »

Ben-  I am trying to plan a long weekend to take the kids to DC in the fall.  Thanks for the offer.  I may take you up on that.

38

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 19, 2012, 08:42:31 AM »

First off, there are two pre-IS 400mm f/2.8 L lenses from Canon.

Thanks, Ben.  Do you know when they made that production change?  most date codes I have seen look to be in late 1990's, so thinking that would be the MkII (?)
 
Really nice pix !
 
 

39

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 18, 2012, 11:35:16 AM »

Thanks for the beanbag/ricebag advice...did not think about, but similar concept to upward shooting  .
 
I could use tripod when sitting, but not laying down.
 
I have a buddy that will lend me a gimbal head to test drive once I make a decision.  Is a gimbal head overkill, good idea or a necessity?
 

40

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 17, 2012, 11:45:32 AM »

Thanks, Tex.  That is one of the bigger factors in the decision between those two lenses.
 
Will keep my eyes open for 300/2.8 pricing trends over the coming weeks/months, as Paul pointed out earlier, with more second hand copies coming available due to 1D4 to 1DX migration.
 

41

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 16, 2012, 05:34:29 PM »

@ xROELOFx & Trumpet - this is the type of real life experience I was looking for.  Shooting on a crop body for now (1D some day).  I will mull over the pros (many) and cons (few) of each.  weight seems to be a big differentiator.
 
do not think either will be a bad choice...sort of like splitting hairs on a bald man.
 
@ Harv - DAMN NICE work!
 
 

42

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 16, 2012, 05:29:39 PM »

@ Paul - I am using the 7D for sports and wildlife, so I am excited about the reach and flexibility with extenders.  AF and fps are as good as I can get...will migrate to a 1D system (hopefully, some day, budget allowing).  This is just a passionate hobby for me, do not have the raw artistic skills you pros have, (yet?).
 
Thanks, Dan.

43

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 16, 2012, 03:13:55 PM »

@Trumpet - thanks for the feedback.  What do you think about the IQ of the lenses, based on the relative age of each?
 
I love the 100-400, but find myself almost always shooting at the longer end and lose AF with extenders.
 
Thanks!

44

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 16, 2012, 03:11:07 PM »

@Flake - Thanks for the third party lens perspective.  I have been one dimensional (Canon only) for so long that was not part of my consideration.  I love the focal range the Sigma offers, as I would be using extenders to get the reach I want for birding (on top of the 1.6 the 7D provides).  As far as the reality check of who is looking at me or showing off, it would be too little, too late (past that stage in life).
 
Will definitely look at the Sigma, but what are your thoughts about the IQ of an "older" 400 (non-IS) versus a relatively "younger" 300?
 
thanks!

45

Lenses / 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 16, 2012, 01:43:15 PM »

I have squirreled away enough of my "allowance" over the past several months that I have approx $3000 to invest in a second hand "big white".
 
The question I have for the group is, based on my budget, which of these two lens gives me the most "bang for the buck"?
 
I will likely have the lens on a monopod (kids sports) or tripod (birds and such), so would the only benefit for IS be for framing the shots?
 
Thoughts?  Advice?