PDA

View Full Version : Best lense for motosports shooting?


Mindspin311
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 08:54
Between now and then 2009 12 Hours of Sebring I plan on picking up a used 20D or 30D body, but I will obviously still need a proper lens.

What does everyone recommend for a good zoom lens that would be best suited for panning shots? Ive been told to look at different versions of Canon's 70-200.

Do I need IS? I have an S3 IS now and always use it, but never really shot without it and Ive been told that I really dont need it for panning shots. Truth?


If you were to choose two lenses, one for panning/action shots and the other for pit shots and more close up action, which would you choose?

Thanks!

Michael_Lambert
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 09:07
Ideally you want either a 70-200 2.8L IS or the 300 2.8 IS.

If i where you i would pick up the 70-200 2.8 IS and a 1.4X TC for it.

g_robins
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 10:07
If you are shooting rallying then I would go for the 70-200mm f2.8IS. You do not need the IS for motorsport but if you buy the lens wwithout IS you might at some point in the future wish you had spent the extra few $.

If you intend to shoot mainly circuit racing then I would go for the 100-400mm, then if need be you can add a 1.4TC to that. Although the 300mm f2.8 is a fantastic lens you have to always be in the correct place to use it, with the zoom you can change aroud abit.

Mindspin311
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 10:25
Yea, all of its motorsports use will be at road racing type events. ALMS, Grand Am, Auto-x, etc..

g_robins
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 10:37
Have a read of this, it might help you
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
or here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Jamie Holladay
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 14:16
that is going to depend on your budget. Length of the lens is going to depend on your access. With that being said. I would not want to attend a M'sports event with our some version of the 70-200, something a little shorter for paddock shots (althoug the 70-200 can work in paddock as well), and as wide as I can get for pit stops, and then something long. I shot with a 300 f/2.8 and a 1.4TC and was pleased (not quiet 500mm but decent reach). I also shot with a 300 f/4 and a 1.4 TC - not so please. The TC slowed the lens down.

Mindspin311
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 14:53
Yea, at this point I would say that my budget in no way will be able to support something like the 100-400. It seems some version of the 70-200 would be affordable. Then from there I would need something a bit shorter for paddock shots, or just for walking around in general.

DC Fan
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 16:14
If you're mostly interested in telephoto lenses: from glancing at B&H's listing, there are plenty of zooms available from US $150-$1,700, (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=sort&A=search&Q=&sortDrop=Price%3A+Low+to+High&bl=&atl=Lens+Type_Zoom+Tele+%2870mm%29%2FSuper+Tele+%2 8600mm%29&pn=1&st=categoryNavigation&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&sv=8429&bhs=t&shs=&ac=&fi=all&pn=1&ci=8429&cmpsrch=&cltp=&clsgr=) all the way from the basic 75-300mm lenses from Canon, Sigma and Tamron, to several units at 400-500mm on the long end.

GeoffSobering
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 16:24
On the long telephoto end, you might want to consider the Sigma 150-500mm OS (http://www.adorama.com/SG150500EOS.html?KBID=61828).

Jamie Holladay
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 16:27
Yea, at this point I would say that my budget in no way will be able to support something like the 100-400. It seems some version of the 70-200 would be affordable. Then from there I would need something a bit shorter for paddock shots, or just for walking around in general.
I shoot with the f/4 non IS version. I have been well please with it. You might consider a 50mm f/1.8 for paddock.
On the long telephoto end, you might want to consider the Sigma 150-500mm OS (http://www.adorama.com/SG150500EOS.html?KBID=61828).
I think that In2Photos has that one and is really please with it.

GeoffSobering
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 16:35
A budget paddock lens might be the new 18-55mm IS (http://www.adorama.com/CA1855AFU.html?KBID=61828). At about $170 it's a bargain.

It's gotten some really good reviews: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

I bought one this spring and so far it's been a winner!

Moppie
12th of October 2008 (Sun), 04:14
that is going to depend on your budget. Length of the lens is going to depend on your access.

Absolutely.

I have shot on the same corner using a borrowed 400, while the owner used his 16-35 and other photographers there used everything in between.


Ideally though I would recommend starting with either the Canon 70-200 2.8 or the Sigma 120-300 2.8.
A fast lens F2.8 is more useful than a slower one because it improves the focus accuracy. When your using AI servo on a car doing 200+kph it really can make a difference.


However, don't think you need a fast expensive lens to take photos of race cars. While I have shot lots of events from both sides of the fence with a 70-200 2.8 and used the 300 and 400 2.8 on the track, the only money I have ever made from motorsport came from using my Sigma 70-300. It might be a slow piece of crap, but it paid for itself several times over, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it again if I absolutely had to.

CamaroSS
13th of October 2008 (Mon), 09:26
A budget paddock lens might be the new 18-55mm IS (http://www.adorama.com/CA1855AFU.html?KBID=61828). At about $170 it's a bargain.

It's gotten some really good reviews: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

I bought one this spring and so far it's been a winner!


I love my 18-55mm IS because I paid $165 for it and it take great photos. I also love that since it's so cheap I don't really have to worry about it having a problem.

I'm still undecided about the 100-400 IS. It worked very well for me a few trips to Sebring this year. Then I used it for a static shoot and wasn't very happy with it.

If you can't afford a 100-400, you won't be able to afford the more expensive 70-200 2.8L IS. Try maybe the f/4 version or look toward Sigma.

smcclelland
13th of October 2008 (Mon), 13:23
I use a 100-400 and 70-200 2.8 non-IS around the track and then switch out the 100-400 for a 24-70 2.8 in the pits/paddock areas.

As far as 2.8 being your best option for motorsports, it's kinda hogwash unless you are shooting rally races in the forest and need to keep the shutter speeds up. At least here in Canada even under the worst overcast or rainy conditions my 100-400 has no trouble with AF even at 400mm @ f5.6.

Simon Harrison
13th of October 2008 (Mon), 13:38
As far as 2.8 being your best option for motorsports, it's kinda hogwash unless you are shooting rally races in the forest and need to keep the shutter speeds up. At least here in Canada even under the worst overcast or rainy conditions my 100-400 has no trouble with AF even at 400mm @ f5.6.

I have to say I disagree with that last statement. Every single motorsport photographer I know and regularly shoot with, all own f2.8 lenses for one reason and one reason only. That reason is not to keep the shutter speed up, but it is to maximise the amount of light hitting the AF sensors and to give the focusing system the maximum amount of light to work with. An f2.8 lens (or the fastest lens you can get in a given focal length) may not be essential, but it most definately helps squeeze every last drop of performance out of the AF system on your camera that's available. Of course the focusing motor on the lens then has to be able to keep up!

Personally, I don't think it's fair to call it hogwash.....

Just my opinion of course.

Simon.

Moppie
13th of October 2008 (Mon), 15:19
As far as 2.8 being your best option for motorsports, it's kinda hogwash unless you are shooting rally races in the forest and need to keep the shutter speeds up. At least here in Canada even under the worst overcast or rainy conditions my 100-400 has no trouble with AF even at 400mm @ f5.6.


As Simon said, the faster the lens, the better the AF will perform.
That is simply a basic part of camera design.
Depending on what, and how you shoot of course, that might, or might not be important :cool:

Mindspin311
13th of October 2008 (Mon), 15:38
I guess I need to learn more about lenses, what makes X lens faster than Y?

Also, how important is IS?

smcclelland
13th of October 2008 (Mon), 21:04
As Simon said, the faster the lens, the better the AF will perform.
That is simply a basic part of camera design.
Depending on what, and how you shoot of course, that might, or might not be important :cool:

I shoot lots of motorsports from the parts canada superbikes to american le mans series and while I originally shot with the Sigma 120-300 2.8 I now shoot with the 100-400L and there is no noticeable difference between the two as far as AF goes on the 40D.

While camera systems do operate AF while the camera is using the lens at its widest aperture the logic is also contrast based which plays a large role in AF as well. I would probably use hogwash loosely but at least say that f2.8 is certainly not a requirement for motorsports shooters imho :)

Moppie
13th of October 2008 (Mon), 21:29
While camera systems do operate AF while the camera is using the lens at its widest aperture the logic is also contrast based which plays a large role in AF as well. I would probably use hogwash loosely but at least say that f2.8 is certainly not a requirement for motorsports shooters imho :)


I will just quote myself:



However, don't think you need a fast expensive lens to take photos of race cars. While I have shot lots of events from both sides of the fence with a 70-200 2.8 and used the 300 and 400 2.8 on the track, the only money I have ever made from motorsport came from using my Sigma 70-300. It might be a slow piece of crap, but it paid for itself several times over, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it again if I absolutely had to.



Useing a faster lens will improve AF performance, but it isn't a requirment.
At the end of the day the user is still more important, and having gear that you know how to use, and are familar with and that suits your style is often an advantage over simply having the best gear.

Cadwell
14th of October 2008 (Tue), 04:49
Having an f/2.8 lens (over an f/5.6) yields a significant focus advantage for motorsport photography; indeed having an f/4 is also preferable to having an f/5.6, but the biggest advantage "step" comes at f/2.8.

Focus accuracy itself is one factor. Many cameras in the Canon range have high precision cross-type AF sensors which you can only take advantage of with lenses with an f/2.8 or higher maximum aperture. The 1D Mark II has 7 such AF points, the 1D Mark III 19, the centre AF point on the 40D and 50D etc. The "high precision" bit speaks for itself with 3 times the accuracy of a standard f/5.6 sensitive sensor. The "cross-type" bit gives you sensitivity to both horizontal and vertical contrast and is perhaps even more important in motorsport work where contrast can be hard to find on some cars.

AI Servo AF sampling rate is another major factor in AF accuracy when tracking a moving car.

In AI Servo AF, the camera samples the AF detection data at varying rates of frequency depending on the light level. The brighter it gets, the higher the sampling rate and therefore AF performance improves. But as light levels drop off, the sampling rate decreases and a point is reached where the tracking ability of the AF system is diminished. In other words, itís unrealistic to expect AI Servo AF to track fast-movingsubjects as well in low light as it does in bright light

By using an f/2.8 maximum aperture lens you are allowing four times as much light to reach the AF sensors as with an f/5.6 maximum aperture lens (with an f/4 lens you're getting double the light through). This makes little difference in brightly lit conditions but as lighting starts to fade it makes a huge difference to AI Servo AF sampling rates and consequently to the camera's ability to track fast moving subjects. In the worst case, a fast moving race car can actually move far enough between AI Servo AF samples to throw the focus out.

Enough of the theory; my personal experience of shooting many thousands of motorsport events and of taking hundreds of thousands of photos of race cars is that in poor lighting conditions there's a direct relationship between lens maximum aperture and the number of in-focus shots I get. The larger the aperture lens, the higher the percentage of in-focus shots.

I am particularly fussy with regard to AF accuracy. A large percentage of the photos posted in the share section of this forum wouldn't survive the "delete" button during post processing if they were mine, let alone be shown on a photo forum to be "admired" by other photographers. Others seem more tolerant; each to their own.

If you shoot mainly in good light or are somewhat less demanding in terms of AF performance then a large aperture lens is not "essential". You will get along quite happily with an f/4 or an f/5.6. However, an f/2.8 does yield an advantage in all light conditions and as the light starts to fade that advantage gets more significant.

andrewc
14th of October 2008 (Tue), 08:19
A mid range lens to consider is the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX.

CamaroSS
14th of October 2008 (Tue), 09:47
I have to say I disagree with that last statement. Every single motorsport photographer I know and regularly shoot with, all own f2.8 lenses for one reason and one reason only. That reason is not to keep the shutter speed up, but it is to maximise the amount of light hitting the AF sensors and to give the focusing system the maximum amount of light to work with. An f2.8 lens (or the fastest lens you can get in a given focal length) may not be essential, but it most definately helps squeeze every last drop of performance out of the AF system on your camera that's available. Of course the focusing motor on the lens then has to be able to keep up!

Personally, I don't think it's fair to call it hogwash.....

Just my opinion of course.

Simon.
I agree with you. I also have found the f/2.8 to become quite the helping hand in low light situations such as a sunset racing shot. :cool:

I guess I need to learn more about lenses, what makes X lens faster than Y?

Also, how important is IS?
That all depends on how steady your hands are. It's not like you will never get a photo without IS, but it increases your chances. It's just a luxury to have. I have shot without IS on a long lens to practice. If you can nail it without IS, you will become a better photographer.

pastanley
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 13:41
If your shooting motorsports- then you don't need IS. Just get a 70-200 f/2.8

Mindspin311
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 13:50
Why do you say that? Whats your reasoning against IS?

CamaroSS
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 15:46
Hmmm, I have to say I would have to say that the IS is worth the extra money. I love having it and it never gets in the way, it only helps.

imager993
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 19:01
+1 vote for the 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x. The combo goes together nicely.

I have IS but rarely use it. Mode 2 is nice to have for the rare times when the pan is very slow (a distant car for example) and I want to reduce vertical movement. It is also good to have for dusk shooting around the paddock or other non-panning shots.

Cadwell
17th of October 2008 (Fri), 05:08
Ah well, each to their own I guess. I find IS a damned nuisance when shooting motorsport, it gets in the way and treats my deliberate camera movements as "camera shake" damping them out. As a consequence I have IS switched off when at the race track or on a rally stage. Useful at other times though.

Tessa
17th of October 2008 (Fri), 08:14
I've been thinking about getting the 1.4x for my 70-200 F2.8 (non-IS), just to have a bit more reach when I need it.

Also the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 sounds tempting for dark rally conditions... Cadwell, I know you have this lens - how do you like it and does it play well with extenders?

Cadwell
17th of October 2008 (Fri), 09:04
I've been thinking about getting the 1.4x for my 70-200 F2.8 (non-IS), just to have a bit more reach when I need it.

Also the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 sounds tempting for dark rally conditions... Cadwell, I know you have this lens - how do you like it and does it play well with extenders?


How much do I like the 120-300mm f/2.8? It is without doubt my favourite lens. It works well with the 1.4x TC but I don't like it with the 2x TC. Mind you, I don't like any lens with a 2x TC.

Tessa
17th of October 2008 (Fri), 09:18
How much do I like the 120-300mm f/2.8? It is without doubt my favourite lens. It works well with the 1.4x TC but I don't like it with the 2x TC. Mind you, I don't like any lens with a 2x TC.
Thank you!

pastanley
18th of October 2008 (Sat), 00:27
Why do you say that? Whats your reasoning against IS?
Why would you need IS if your shooting high speed racing cars? IS is for slower shutter speeds - not a good idea while shooting 150 mph race cars.

Cadwell
18th of October 2008 (Sat), 01:55
Why would you need IS if your shooting high speed racing cars? IS is for slower shutter speeds - not a good idea while shooting 150 mph race cars.

Most motorsport photography is done at "slower shutter speeds" so that you retain some sense of motion in the car. It is actually a very good idea as you really don't want those incredibly boring "parked on the circuit" photos that we all laugh at!

The highest shutter speed I ever use is 1/320th, normally 1/200th - 1/250th is more typical for a head-on or three-quarters shot. Pans are shot at slower shutter speeds still. My lenses are usually a 600mm or 500mm prime so I am way below the old 1/focal length rule of thumb for hand-holding.

I guess that's why some people like IS; I don't. I prefer to use a monopod (I have to with the 500 and 600 anyway as they are too heavy to hand-hold for any period of time) and so find IS an unnecessary nuisance which interferes with my ability to track cars accurately. For pans I prefer to hand-hold but still find IS "unpleasant".

Mindspin311
21st of October 2008 (Tue), 16:08
I may have to turn off IS on my S3 one time and see how I like it.

Arctica
21st of October 2008 (Tue), 18:49
As dearly as I would love a 300mm F2.8 the cost doesn't compute for a hobby photog.
With 1k to spend and a 1.6 crop factor I'm veering toward the F4 IS version.
I was looking at the 100-400 but with the extra stop of light it won't be user friendly for Woodland events and the lense needs to be versatile,
Cadwell... yay or nay for the 300mm F4 over the 100-400?

Cadwell
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 02:53
Forest rallies in the UK tend to be dark and murky affairs and it helps to get as much light into the camera as you can. As such they aren't the natural home of the 100-400L; I wouldn't even think of taking my one to a rally, I usually take the Sigma 120-300 or the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS - often with the 135f/2 or 85/1.8 along in case it gets seriously murky.

The Canon 300mm f/4L is a nice lens and I know a number of people who use or have used it for motorsport work. A couple of them have since replaced 300/4L with the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 which they prefer. Also look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM which is popular with UK motorsport photographers as it has excellent optics, fast autofocus and the constant f/4 maximum aperture coupled with a zoom makes it a flexible package at a good price.

Arctica
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 06:32
Thanks Cadwell.
I'll see if I can hire the sigmas for the weekend soon.
I did use the 300f4 a few weeks ago and really liked it but have noticed on here that the 100-400 is popular amoungst Motorsport enthusiasts.

Cadwell
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 09:16
The 100-400L works well enough in reasonable light. The problem is that reasonable light can be hard to come by in the UK and something with a wider aperture is better suited to the prevailing conditions. That doesn't mean the 100-400L is a bad choice, if you must have a 400mm zoom on a Canon mount then it is the best available but there are better lens choices if motorsport in the UK is your main interest.

Simon Harrison
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 09:34
Artica,

Have a look here: -

http://www.camtechuk.com/shop/shop-list/product-list.php?manufac=canon

and scroll down to near the bottom of the list. They have a selection of the lenses mentioned above within your price range. Yes, the equipment is secondhand, but the last time I dealt with Camtech, their policy was only to trade in lightly used equipment and not ex pro gear that had seen a hard life.

Cheers,

Simon.

Arctica
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 13:37
Thanks for the link Simon. Theres a 120-300 sigma there for under £1k:shock:
I'd be tempted in selling my hardly used 17-40mm for the 16-35 f2.8 too for Bike Enduros (winter + woodland= dark :lol: )

philwillmedia
11th of November 2008 (Tue), 07:00
I tend to agree with smclelland on this one.
I shoot a stack of motorsport and all kinds as well, ranging from V8 Touring Cars, Rallies, Motorkhanas etc, etc and in all sorts of conditions - track, forest, wet, dry, sunny, cloudy etc, etc
I'm not just restricted to motorsport, I cover all kinds of sports and other events
Most (85%) of what I shoot is with the 100-400L Series with IS off.
I also shoot with shutter speeds ranging from 1/2500th of a second to 1/10th and even sometimes 1/6th or 1/8th. Depending on what I'm shoting and what I'm trying to achieve.
Simon's argument of using a 2.8 lens to get the most amount of light on the sensor falls down somewhat vis-a-vie...
If you are using a lens which has a max aperture of 2.8 but have it set at F11, then that's the same as having a 5.6 lens set at F11.
F11 (or any other F Stop) is F11 (or any other F Stop) no matter what the max aperture is.
(Does this make sense) Shoot me down in flames if it doesn't or if I am wrong.
I do agree though that a 2.8 does come in handy if it's really overcast or late in the day when the light may be fading.
I don't have a 2.8 lens, but have used one at various times
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing anything that has been said by anyone prior, this is just what works for me.

Here's a couple of really low res examples taken with the 100-400L Series

ISO 320 F5.6 @ 1/1600
319076

ISO 1250 F4.5 @ 1/100
319077

Regards
Phil

Cadwell
11th of November 2008 (Tue), 07:16
Simon's argument of using a 2.8 lens to get the most amount of light on the sensor falls down somewhat vis-a-vie...
If you are using a lens which has a max aperture of 2.8 but have it set at F11, then that's the same as having a 5.6 lens set at F11.
F11 (or any other F Stop) is F11 (or any other F Stop) no matter what the max aperture is.
(Does this make sense) Shoot me down in flames if it doesn't or if I am wrong.

Best get your parachute ready. :lol:

Simon was talking about AF sensors and you are either forgetting (or you don't know) how a Canon EOS camera focuses. Regardless of what you have the aperture set to, or what the camera meters to, autofocus is always done with the lens set to maximum aperture. The lens is only stopped down to the "correct" aperture in the instant before the photo is taken and it is released back to full aperture immediately afterwards.

Simply put, an f/2.8 lens always focuses at f/2.8 and an f/5.6 lens always focuses at f/5.6 regardless of the aperture setting. So, an f/2.8 lens always has four times the amount of light reaching the autofocus sensors as an f/5.6 lens and that is why high precision cross type focus points only work with f/2.8 lenses and that's why the sampling rate of the tracking autofocus function is higher with wider aperture lenses.

I do hope the parachute opened. ;)

philwillmedia
11th of November 2008 (Tue), 07:45
Thanks Glenn,
Well..You learn something new everyday.
Direct hit. Eject-Eject-Eject.
Yep, the parachute opened, but only just - and there's lots of wreckage - LOL.
I'll just spend the rest of the week suffering from "foot in mouth disease"
But seriously, thanks for the lesson.
Regards
Phil

KiwiRallyFan
14th of November 2008 (Fri), 17:40
Simon was talking about AF sensors and you are either forgetting (or you don't know) how a Canon EOS camera focuses. Regardless of what you have the aperture set to, or what the camera meters to, autofocus is always done with the lens set to maximum aperture. The lens is only stopped down to the "correct" aperture in the instant before the photo is taken and it is released back to full aperture immediately afterwards.

Simply put, an f/2.8 lens always focuses at f/2.8 and an f/5.6 lens always focuses at f/5.6 regardless of the aperture setting. So, an f/2.8 lens always has four times the amount of light reaching the autofocus sensors as an f/5.6 lens and that is why high precision cross type focus points only work with f/2.8 lenses and that's why the sampling rate of the tracking autofocus function is higher with wider aperture lenses.


Thanks for that info Glenn, I never knew that either.

That's what I love about browsing internet forums - I'm always learning stuff!

totalphoto
18th of November 2008 (Tue), 00:33
Does anyone use a 400mm 2.8? I lookin at one of those now...

Moppie
18th of November 2008 (Tue), 00:47
Does anyone use a 400mm 2.8? I lookin at one of those now...


I did once, with and with out a 2x TC.

I still dream about it.

In reality it was quite hard to use, it would take a lot of practice to compose properly with such a long lens when your subjects are moving so quickly and the lens is so big and heavy. I used it for perhaps half and hour, got no where good in terms of controlling it.

However the focus speed and IQ is devastating, I ended up with a pile of badly composed but perfectly focused shots of NZ V8's.

totalphoto
18th of November 2008 (Tue), 00:52
Funny! and another question, how was it with the 2x TC? Minus you, the image I mean...

Moppie
18th of November 2008 (Tue), 00:59
Funny! and another question, how was it with the 2x TC? Minus you, the image I mean...


To be honest, I haven't look close enough to tell any difference.

I have used a 2X TC on the 400 2.8, a 300 2.8 and a couple of different 70-200 2.8s. I never really noticed any great difference in IQ.
I am sure it is there, and there is enough evidence around to show there is a loss in IQ, but IMO unless your really pixel peeping it is not enough to get upset about.

totalphoto
18th of November 2008 (Tue), 01:15
Got ya! Thanks.

jim9449
19th of November 2008 (Wed), 16:15
Thanks for that info Glenn, I never knew that either.

That's what I love about browsing internet forums - I'm always learning stuff!

Totally agree with you KiwiRallyFan, lesson learned Glenn never knew that either.
Jim

totalphoto
19th of November 2008 (Wed), 19:08
Moppie,
ordered the 400mm 2.8 L IS last night. I am excited & want to throw up all at the same time! :) :((price)

Moppie
19th of November 2008 (Wed), 23:06
Moppie,
ordered the 400mm 2.8 L IS last night. I am excited & want to throw up all at the same time! :) :((price)


Have fun, that's a huge step to take.

If it gets to much for you, just send it my way for a holiday :cool:

totalphoto
19th of November 2008 (Wed), 23:14
Will do! I think I will be fine. :)