August 27, 2014, 11:07:25 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DanoPhoto

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
46
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 !
 
 

47
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?
 

48
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.
 

49
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!
 
 

50
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.

51
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!

52
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!

53
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?

54
Technical Support / Re: Canon 7D Unusual Problem?
« on: April 16, 2012, 01:12:34 PM »
I did the same thing here and did not get any flicker.  I would return for another copy.
 
Definitely unusual.

55
Lenses / Re: Advise on next lens for my current setup
« on: April 06, 2012, 04:03:45 PM »
Two different applications for the lenses you are looking at.  What areas are you trying to expand your shooting range in?
 
Sports/wildlife, then the 100-400.  Mature/macro/portratiure, then the 100 macro.
 
I have the 70-200 f2.8 II, so have not shot with the f4, so cannot comment there, but the 100-400 is a great zoom lens (especially on a crop camera).

56
Lenses / Re: Looking for advice.
« on: April 04, 2012, 04:43:04 PM »
thought about getting both primes?  Second hand copies might be within your budget...
 
The 50/f1.4 is a great lens and would figure a 20%-30% keeper rate is pretty frustrating.  I love mine!

57
Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site Information
« on: April 01, 2012, 01:21:56 PM »
Glad to see CR continue to evolve as one of the top forums out there.  Karma, reputation or whatever it is called next helps, but after a while it all becomes a blur and loses it original purpose.


Every one can identify positive contributors and those that are not.


Glad CR is doing everything possible to maintain civility.


Dan

58
I have the BR strap w/ Kirk clamp setup and it is not cumbersome, bukly or unsightly, at all.  Solid connection that is quick and flexible from body plate to (tripod) lens plate.

59
Lenses / Re: Best lens/TC setup for football game
« on: March 29, 2012, 01:20:59 PM »
The 100-400 is a great combo with a 7D.  You mentioned renting a lens, but why not rent the 7D as well?


Will deliver better results with higher fps, faster AF and 1.6x reach.


Of course, just someone else spending your money.  ;D


Dan

60
Software & Accessories / Re: Monopod ball head style
« on: March 27, 2012, 08:24:37 PM »
I have used the manfrotto 234 tilt head for years and it has been great.  As you mentioned, keeping two hands on the camera are key, so any head requiring one of your hands to control/manipulate is counter productive.


If I want to rotate or switch orientation, I loose the tripod collar rathere than using the tilt feature of the head.


Dan

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7