Well I did it. 300 2.8

Ronald S. Jr. wrote:
From the man who said he'd just realized how wonderful the 24-70L is and what great colors, contrast, and sharpness he got from it. "Using it more and more". Oh well. Anything to validate a purchase. However, I almost take offense to seeing the 70-200L IS 24-70L and 16-35L called "compromise" lenses. They're no compromise. They're the best of the best.

hahah

Dante King wrote:
Thanks guys.

Ed got the best of the best, IF you are into compromise lenses.

Yes, All primes. These 3 zooms were just collecting dust. So to be happy, they had to go to finance this new purchase. I am in contract negotiations with a sherpa to walk around with me!

Every lens has some sort of compromise!

ed rader wrote:
i can state unequivocally that he sold the 24-70L.....said i, as i screwed the lens onto my camera ......... .

ed rader

AH screw fitting must be befor FD mount then
Rob

Dante King wrote:
Oh I dont care for sharpness, this is a status symbol, nothing more.

i respect the honesty

Oooooh, I feel another Ronald lens sale coming on. I remember the talk up process so well from all the previous sales. Hell, I nearly bought that amazing 28-135mm IS he had myself. It just sounded so ... erm ... 'steller'.

j/k

Congrats Dante!

Must be nice to be able to buy this lens. I want one!
Now your almost there.
You just need a few more primes and you will have all the best.
50mm f1.2
200mm f1.8
400mm f2.8
500mm f4
600mm f 4

What's next?

He's stated numerous times that he won't own a lens slower than 2.8. Which means he'll never have over 400mm, either.

The Sherpa or the lens?

Peregrin wrote:
The Sherpa or the lens?

LMAO.

It was the best I had owned at that point, Dave. That was about a year ago. I've owned tons more since then, and every one of them better than that.

Noo, none of mine going on the block. Other than probably the 35L, but not until I see some sick performance from the new 50L. If not, I'll keep the 35. It's a truly fine lens. 24-70L, 70-200L IS, 100 macro, 35L. All damn fine tools. Not to mention the 5D. I'm a happy camper, until I can afford my super tele's. This very 300 is at the top of my list. Also considering the 135L, now that I'll be doing a fair amount of theater work.

On Canon's front how much more difficult could making an extra 100mm at the same aperture be? i mean the 70-200mm F2.8 i would of thought is more fiddly with more components than the 300mm f2.8??? Why is there such a price leap for 100mm??

congrats on getting my lens 1st!

Fluorite, a bigger body to allow that same aperture. At 100mm more, the glass has to be a lot bigger to make the same aperture ability. Hence, the huge front element. The IS elements are more complicated, too. Not to mention working harder with the tighter fov. Few more features on the lens, big metal hood that's actually the right depth, metal trunk comes with it, etc. Frilly things, mostly. The IQ is the best out there, too, imo.

Because the 70-200 f/2.8 has a physical aperture of 71 mm; the 300 has a physical diameter of 107 mm. That means more than twice as much glass in just one element to pour, shape and polish.

ok i see, very interesting! Cheers guys!