- Welcome to Aviation Photographers of Southern Ca..
Posted by Spectre130
- February 08, 2011, 07:49:09 AMQuote from: GTagami on February 07, 2011, 04:06:51 PMhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/#0 There is always the tape trick if you need it but my 100-400 is bad enough as it is, the TC would only make it worse.
You also lose AF if you use a TC on the 100-400.
Posted by rammsteinmatt
- February 07, 2011, 08:17:11 PMQuote from: Spectre130 on February 07, 2011, 03:21:36 PM
There is talk that this puppy will start off at about the $7K mark.
maybe, perhaps a little less. The Nikon equivalent is ~$7k and I've tended to notice Canon lenses being slightly less expensive than their Nikon counterparts.
Does this mean Canonites will finally come to terms that the 100-400 is not the greatest thing to happen to aviation photography since airplances were invented?
oh man do I love it when they look down on me because im using a lowly 200-400 and they're using THE 100-400. shame on me, i didnt even bow to it. now that at least half the board has it out for me, i say g'day
I really was just joking about, but a couple people I know (from school) say my 200-400 is a pretty good lens then go on to say how wonderful their 100-400 is and how dumb I am for shooting Nikon. Left a bad taste in my mouth.
Posted by GTagami
- February 07, 2011, 04:06:51 PMQuote from: phantomphan1974 on February 07, 2011, 02:56:33 PM
I think Anthony or someone posted that on FB. Petty interesting idea. Guess it easier or better to put the converter in there instead of making it a 200-560mm? And what would be the benifit over puting a 1.4 on a 100-400mm besides a lower f-stop?
You also lose AF if you use a TC on the 100-400.
Posted by SBGrad
- February 07, 2011, 03:29:33 PMQuote from: Spectre130 on February 07, 2011, 03:21:36 PM
I'm still thinking about selling off one of my kids on the black market for a 300mm 2.8 IS. this would take all three of my kids.
Nikon is on (IIRC) the 3rd version of its 300mm f/2.8 VR lens. I found a used 300mm f/2.8, the last version before VR, that was about 1/2 the cost of the brand new VR3 version. Still quite spendy, but it was doable for me (my employer lets us cash in vacation on a 1-1 basis, if you take a week, you can cash in a week, so I took 2 weeks last year and cashed in 2).
My $.02 on built in tcs-- I'd just as soon have a discrete TC, that way I can put it on multiple lenses.
Posted by Spectre130
- February 07, 2011, 03:21:36 PMThere is talk that this puppy will start off at about the $7K mark.
Too rich for my blood. shoot, I couldn't even afford that much white paint much less the glass...
I'm still thinking about selling off one of my kids on the black market for a 300mm 2.8 IS. this would take all three of my kids.
Too rich for my blood. shoot, I couldn't even afford that much white paint much less the glass...
I'm still thinking about selling off one of my kids on the black market for a 300mm 2.8 IS. this would take all three of my kids.
Posted by rander
- February 07, 2011, 03:19:48 PMQuote from: Diegos Aviacion on February 07, 2011, 02:18:43 PM
Wow............. nice piece of glass!! I wonder how much this puppy will be???
Wondering that myself. Maybe a 2X extender instead of 1.4.
Posted by phantomphan1974
- February 07, 2011, 02:56:33 PMI think Anthony or someone posted that on FB. Petty interesting idea. Guess it easier or better to put the converter in there instead of making it a 200-560mm? And what would be the benifit over puting a 1.4 on a 100-400mm besides a lower f-stop?
Posted by Diegos Aviacion
- February 07, 2011, 02:18:43 PMWow............. nice piece of glass!! I wonder how much this puppy will be???