Pick two:
 | HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR |
Pick2
by Mandrake Photography, on FlickrCurrent stable of lenes include and old 24-85 & 70-300, the 40mm STM and 70-200 IS II w/1.4x TC.
dgrPhotos Cream of the Crop  More info | Aug 21, 2012 11:59 | #3256 Pick two:
Pick2 by Mandrake Photography, on FlickrCurrent stable of lenes include and old 24-85 & 70-300, the 40mm STM and 70-200 IS II w/1.4x TC.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink  69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:01 | #3258 laxlife1234 wrote in post #14887229 dude, I don't have any money!  I'm buying a new pair of jeans now, something I need.. or I could just buy a BD... or ring flash... decisions decisions..  I could also save it buttttt that's no fun  Another pair of $700.00 jeans?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
*sigh* Hardware Master (or something like that)  25,131 posts Likes: 45 Joined Feb 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:01 | #3259 dgrPhotos wrote in post #14887232 Pick two:
Pick2 by Mandrake Photography, on FlickrCurrent stable of lenes include and old 24-85 & 70-300, the 40mm STM and 70-200 IS II w/1.4x TC. I mean it really depends on what you want... but I'd go 16-35/85. If you really need the extra reach then go 100-400 over the 85, but certainly snag the 16-35 it's a wonderful lens.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:02 | #3260 Dan, 85 and 300 2.8 MK II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dgrPhotos Cream of the Crop More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:02 | #3261 *sigh* wrote in post #14887243 I mean it really depends on what you want... but I'd go 16-35/85. I want it all!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
*sigh* Hardware Master (or something like that) 25,131 posts Likes: 45 Joined Feb 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:02 | #3262 See my edit. I'd probably go 16-35 and 100-400 then. jdizzle wrote in post #14887250 Dan, 85 and 300 2.8 MK II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BlurrCube ...a lucky id-iot that didn't get electrocuted...  15,147 posts Likes: 91 Joined Aug 2010 Location: Southern California More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:03 | #3263 The 2 zooms then. | Canon EOS Systems |
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:04 | #3264 After I edited those photos last night it seems to be the most logical choice. With that said, I can buy that Zeiss 15 2.8 ZF.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dgrPhotos Cream of the Crop More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:04 | #3265 jdizzle wrote in post #14887250 Dan, 85 and 300 2.8 MK II. When I had the Nikon 300 I was wishing I had a zoom.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
laxlife1234 Cream of the Crop  12,432 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2011 Location: NY More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:05 | #3266 I was thinking of going higher end and going for $2,000....
LOG IN TO REPLY |
D.Vance Goldmember  4,163 posts Likes: 12 Joined Jan 2011 Location: VA More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:08 | #3267 dgrPhotos wrote in post #14887232 Pick two:
Pick2 by Mandrake Photography, on FlickrCurrent stable of lenes include and old 24-85 & 70-300, the 40mm STM and 70-200 IS II w/1.4x TC. The 16-35 and 100-400. I have the cheaper version (17-40) and it performs solidly, and the 100-400 is the best telephoto ever. I wonder if the video editors on The Titanic ever went, "Sorry, I can't right now. I'm busy synching the Titanic..."
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:11 | #3268 dgrPhotos wrote in post #14887262 When I had the Nikon 300 I was wishing I had a zoom.  The Canon version of the 200-400 will cost an arm and a leg. Stick with the zoom. It better have gold on the zipper.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle wrote in post #14887250 Dan, 85 and 300 2.8 MK II. dgrPhotos wrote in post #14887252 Wildlife and sports is my thing. Julian's choices would work well
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dgrPhotos Cream of the Crop More info | Aug 21, 2012 12:14 | #3270 D. Vance wrote in post #14887277 The 16-35 and 100-400. I have the cheaper version (17-40) and it performs solidly, and the 100-400 is the best telephoto ever. I think I'll finally put in the order for the 100-400.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 1596 guests, 117 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
