PDA

View Full Version : Canon at Cannes

jtmorales
22nd of May 2006 (Mon), 17:28
Saw this photo on the MSN coverage of the Cannes film festival and it made me chuckle.

http://entimg.msn.com/i/gal/Cannes2006/Photog_400.jpg
cosworth
22nd of May 2006 (Mon), 17:31
The ole F4 represents. Not bad.
Ronald S. Jr.
22nd of May 2006 (Mon), 17:39
quite a few 28-300's, too! A rarely seen lens.
jtmorales
22nd of May 2006 (Mon), 17:43
I imagine in such tight quarters the 28-300 would certainly come in handy.
Ronald S. Jr.
22nd of May 2006 (Mon), 20:01
Lol...look at that...a single Nikon shooter. Down by the right corner. :lol:
Big WIll
23rd of May 2006 (Tue), 09:38
what is the lens in the middle of the photo?? 200?? 300??
Ronald S. Jr.
23rd of May 2006 (Tue), 09:38
Looks like a 300 2.8
Longwatcher
23rd of May 2006 (Tue), 13:28
I had not realised the 28-300 was push-pull like the 100-400 (although it explains the weird hood I was seeing on what I thought were 100-400's). If you can only carry one lens I guess that is the one to carry.
It looks like some 70-200/2.8 both with and without IS are present in numbers also.

And what I thought was most interesting was the photographers were almost all (if not all) in tuxes.

Another interesting note is all of the videographers are in the back and the photographers are up front. obvious who is more important. :)

I do have this mental picture though of the guy with the 1200mm just off to the left out of the image. 8)
Wazza
23rd of May 2006 (Tue), 19:24
I think you can see a few POTN members in there. Or maybe not.
:lol:
cjm
23rd of May 2006 (Tue), 21:59
The ole F4 represents. Not bad.And why not? Its light and fast. It doesnt have IS because it doesnt need it, where as the bulky 2.8 does. However, I'd buy the monster bulky 28-300mm IS L if I could afford to. Alas I don't need it. :lol: (then again I dont need anything I have)
saravrose
24th of May 2006 (Wed), 00:10
Lol...look at that...a single Nikon shooter. Down by the right corner. :lol:

I don't see him.....:p
MazerRakhm
24th of May 2006 (Wed), 09:32
Boy, that's a nice shopping list right there...

So much Canon money in one place!
jtmorales
24th of May 2006 (Wed), 10:17
I had not realised the 28-300 was push-pull like the 100-400 (although it explains the weird hood I was seeing on what I thought were 100-400's).

What's Push-pull? I don't think I've ever heard that term before?
Ronald S. Jr.
24th of May 2006 (Wed), 10:37
On the 28-300L IS and the 100-400L IS, you actually have to slide the front of the barrel of the lens forward to zoom in, as opposed to just twisting a ring.
cosworth
24th of May 2006 (Wed), 10:38
And why not? Its light and fast. It doesnt have IS because it doesnt need it, where as the bulky 2.8 does.

exactly why I own it.