This lens has about the same aperture size as the 300mm f/2.8, to ask Canon to build the new version of the 300mm f/2.8 for 3 grand is kinda unlrealistic. So is trying to say they should make a lens like this for the 3 grand. It
Printable View
This lens has about the same aperture size as the 300mm f/2.8, to ask Canon to build the new version of the 300mm f/2.8 for 3 grand is kinda unlrealistic. So is trying to say they should make a lens like this for the 3 grand. It
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Agreed. At 3 grand, I"d buy it in a flash. But there is a big price jump between 77-80mm aperture and 100+ mm aperture. I think the 300 f/2.8 is the cheapest canon lens in that aperture range, and zooms tend to cost more than primes. I'd love a 200-400 f/4, but the fact that it costs more than I would spend for it does not surprise me in the slightest.
After reading all these posts, my $1500 (new), lighter, high quality 100-400 IS zoom is looking better and better all the time.
200-400 with 1.4x, and the convenience of not having to mount/unmount the lens PLUS the extender on the fly, will surely hold a ton of appeal for bird/wildlife and sports shooters. Still, I wonder if this built-in extender technology will start appearing on other lenses.
hrm, I
Did anyone notice that there are 3 modes for image stabilisation? I wonder what the third mode is...
3rd mode is stabilized only during exposure. They describe it somewhere in the blurb, albeit briefly.
Paul
Ah thanks. I don't see a huge benefit to that then. I like having IS working while focusing and composing, especially at longer focal lengths.
Oh by the way, I just unboxed my new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.... it's slightly sexy.[:D]