zim said:I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together)
AvTvM said:Looks good to me. Except the foot has still no Arca-comparible grooves.
I will point this out until we finally get it ... just like with the lenscaps Mk. II with inner grips.![]()
I suppose you have both possibilities. That was my suggestion when I saw that screw on the tripod ring foot.Lee Jay said:Am I missing something, or does just the foot of the tripod ring come off? Looks like the ring itself is permanent to me.
Seeing the pic you posted, I somehow got a feeling of a retinal detachment.ajfotofilmagem said:... the unicorn exists and is beautiful. ...
zim said:I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together)
ajfotofilmagem said:Judging by the released image, the unicorn exists and is beautiful.
AcutancePhotography said:Psst, that's not a unicorn. That's an image of a pegasus.
;D
zim said:I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together)
Oh, I'm sorry. The Pegasus was the Canon 35mm F1.4L Mark ii.Maximilian said:Seeing the pic you posted, I somehow got a feeling of a retinal detachment.ajfotofilmagem said:... the unicorn exists and is beautiful. ...
The one of the lens seems much more beautiful to me
edit: by the way for the records: your pic: no horn but wings = pegasus![]()
Lenscracker said:Why did the first picture of this lens have to be out of focus?
ajfotofilmagem said:Judging by the released image, the unicorn exists and is beautiful. It also seems very solid and compact. It was a long wait.
![]()
Maximilian said:I suppose you have both possibilities.Lee Jay said:Am I missing something, or does just the foot of the tripod ring come off? Looks like the ring itself is permanent to me.
neuroanatomist said:I believe Lee Jay is correct. Looking at the knob on the ring itself (which allows rotation of the lens inside the collar for portrait/landscape switch), it's in the wrong position to allow removal of the entire ring. Rather, the inset knob allows just the foot to be removed. That inset knob looks very similar to the one on the EF mount adapter for the EOS M, except in that case the top of the removable foot is curved to match the adapter barrel, whereas the 100-400 II looks like removing the foot will leave a flat (ergonomically poor) bare surface.Lee Jay said:Am I missing something, or does just the foot of the tripod ring come off? Looks like the ring itself is permanent to me.