"My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:xh2rj.3$Uq4.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Ybednd1iw957HDHanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new
Rebel
>>>>>> XSi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/PMA2008.jsp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do I want one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :()
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.
>>>>
>>>> That lens looks good, and is good, but the logistics of using it
>>>> something to consider before buying it. Unless you're into serious
>>>> nature or outdoor s****ts photography there are better solutions.
>>>
>>> What better way to find the missing groundhog? There's a kid from
>>> Canada, Danny Sveinson who I took note of because of his guitar
talent.
>>> One day sniffing around on flickr I found his picture page and he has
a
>>> few astounding birdie shots with a lens like that.
>>
>> It can take great pictures. Lugging it around with tripods and other
>> equipment though is a chore. Personally, I would rather have a smaller
>> 300-400mm lens with a 1.4X or 2X extender. That setup would be more
>> versatile for the not so serious amateur.
>
> Michael, I have the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
> Autofocus Lens that I use on my Canon EOS 30D, I had a 1.4 extender,
sent
> it back and got the 2.0 extender. I would seriously save your money.
>
>
>
> The extenders DO NOT autofocus, there usefulness is largely negated by
> that fact alone. Getting a perfectly manually focused long distance
shot
> through that setup is a way less than 50/50 chance. I never use mine,
if
> I had realized just how useless it would be I would have spent the $300
on
> a different lens.
I think it's funny where this conversation has gone. I asked about a
$1,000
camera, not a $7,000 lens!
Hell, if I could afford that lens, I could probably afford a new camera to
go with it.
And Nobody - I rented that lens last August for a couple of weeks. Enjoyed
the hell out of it, so much so that I extended my rental period to a full
month, so I could take it up to the Eagles training camp. But, damn, that
thing gets heavy after a time.
I have the journeyman 70-300 telephoto, so I'd probably go with the 400mm
prime instead. (As a matter of fact, I just ordered a two-week rental. The
last rental I decided that I had to have was the 100mm macro - great
lens.)
The 400mm f/5.6 goes for about $1,100, so I'd have to start a serious
campaign with my wife (honey, I neeeeeed this lens). But if I had $7,000
to
dump on a lens, the 400mm f/2.8 is real close to that!
When that 800mm comes out, it's bound to be ...oh... a bit more than that.
dwight
www.tfrog.com
|
