Zeiss lenses are typical Veblen goods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good The higher the price, the more difficult they are to use, and in general the more esoteric they are, the more some people will love them.
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.
I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......I would check that out, too, though I can say that the 400 f/5.6 is a great lens if you can get used to the lack of IS. Many of my best photos were taken during the 4 years I owned this lens. The 300 f/2.8 II IS + 1.4x III and 2xIII is what I upgraded to and other than the cost, size, and weight, I can recommend it without reservation.
Also, your post scared me a bit as "going native" means going without clothes in American slang
Because, there are survey results 4-5% of customers who bought the kit lens is that it does not use only kit lens.
Would indeed be interesting to see an accurate translation of this. Do 5% never buy another lens? If so that is an amazing stst
I could believe that easily 4-5% never buy another lens. I know people with DSLRs that bought a kit and are just fine with their kit zoom. They take pictures only once in a while such as on a trip or at some big event. It just depends on how much they get into photography.
I sincerely doubt it means 4-5% don't buy lens(es) beyond the kit. The lens + body sales milestones (100M lenses, 70M bodies) aren't consistent with that interpretation.
Living in Botswana, let put across my experience. I used to use the 300 F2.8mk1 with a1.4X TC permanently fitted on my 7D. I was quite happy with the combo and as I was still learning to use my gear I did miss a few shots here and there. Last year during some major upgrades, I sold off the 300Mk1 and replaced it with the 200-400mm . My reasons
1) Versatility of the zoom for composition cannot be beaten !!!
2) I dont have to worry about weights and losing luggage enroute to places. I usually book a private safari and pay through my nose for having certain privileges such as being the only person with the guide on the "Bakkie"/ Open Safari vehicle.
3) The higher F stop is not too much of a problem for me.
4) Dust is a B***H, it gets in everywhere.
5) I usually holiday in private concession which means that we can go off road , where as in the parks you are restricted to the roads and will need a longer lens.
6) After two holidays with the 200-400, I am very happy and impressed with having it on a 1Dx !
PS: I am thinking of adding a 600mm with a crop body( 7D2?) and 1.4X TC for Birding !
We were in SA on safari, together with my wife. we had a 300f2.8ISi and 70-200f4IS and a 2xiii Extender on 5dii and 50d
in "good light mode" we had the 300mm on the 50d normally with extender, in the evening, we removed first the extender, next changed the 300mm on the 5dii and maybe the 50d to a fast 50mm.
- a crop camera is the better extender than a real extender
- the big whites are so bitingly sharp, that their resolution is enough for the spaller pixels on the crop sensor
- with 2 cams one gets different perspectives at the same time.
For the (in my opinion) way overpriced 200-400 you can probably take a 2nd person on the trip, who does the 2nd perspective (and helps to carry all the stuff).
If money doesnt matter, and if y can carry the weight of the 200-400, i would take a 400f2.8 instead, with the same strategy, and would use a 1 crop and one FF camera instead of 2FF
Rotating zoom ring
You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?
Despite the controversy, I rather like my push pull 100-400. Never had a dust problem... I would welcome faster AF. That's the only downside I have experienced with mine. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the price is $2400.
I agree - push pull is a very robust design and it is a retrograde step to give us a telephoto like the 70-300L although admittedly that is a good lens optically but is not as tough as the current 100-400 where the front optical assembly slides along a rigid tube.
Insurance is a casino game between you and the insurance company in which the odds are stacked in their favour. Many years ago, I was given the advice that you insure yourself only against events that happen very rarely and are too expensive for you to cover. If you can afford to replace your gear, then don't insure it because the insurance companies have the odds stacked in their favour - they make a profit because on average the insurance premiums cost more than the cost of repairs and losses.
So I take it that you don't insure your house or car either? Of course insurance companies are out to make a profit, they can't provide that service for free! The model is for them to spread the risk over many in hopes of reducing their risks and keeping the premiums lower for everyone in the group. That's just how it works.