UK South-East Thread

MaDProFF wrote in post #6181159
Well according to one review it focuses faster than 1D MK3 is that slower than a D300??

It's not the speed that's the problem - the servo AF on the D300 rocks big time (51 focus points, 15 of which are cross type). If the 50D does focus faster than the 1DM3, that's amazing.

Oh, and regarding the 100-400. If you're going to make use of it, and you can afford it, go for it!

Hello everyone, I have been neglecting this thread a bit lately! I have today started proper editing of photos from my holiday in France back in June. It'll take me a few days, if not weeks, but I thought I really ought to get on with it!

50D sure looks nice but I'm saving for a 70-200 2.8 L IS so that'll have to wait in line!

Hogster, I agree that if you like it and it produces photos that you like, go for it!

Oh, and I must say that the Cricket is going well! (Eng v SA)

Cracking stuff.

Go for the 100-400 David! I'd be tempted to get rid of mine after the 300mm purchase but its such a handy lens to have! With my wedding coming up I made have to rationalise my lens collection

elysium wrote in post #6181311
To be honest, I did not really see anything about the 100-400L that made me want one. The IQ from the Sigma 120-300 just seemed far better throughout the range. At 100-200mm or so, that Canon was great but at the longer end, the IQ did not seem as great. I guess I would need to do some more side by side comparisons.

I've seen some great shots from the Sigma but one thing I do keep hearing from owners is the 100-400 is great for wildlife and safaris. Obviously you have to account for copy to copy variances but those with decent copies have given it a big thumbs up. For me, I was deciding between the two and ended up going prime as I knew I would use the zooms at their longest lengths 90 percent of the time.

After 2 recent outings, I definately think that the Sigma 120-300 needs to be sold.

whilst I procrastinate about sorting out a sales post, feel free to throw me any offers!

Rich

How about a pound?

It's an English pound...

...or I'll swap you my 70-300 lens...?

100-400L IS grows on you although it may spend a lot of time in it's bag. The 70-200 f2.8L also grows on you but it seems you need to take them both out as they compliment each other. Can't describe it but, if I take the 100-400 out I wish I'd taken the 70-200 to get the best from the f2.8 and higher quality and if I take the 70-200 I wish I'd taken the 100-400 for the extra reach.
This leaves MaDProFFs dilemma on the size of the carrying bag - I suggest nicking a shopping trolley (take the B&Q or Asda label off though or you might have some explaining to do).

michaelgreen78 wrote in post #6182184
How about a pound?

It's an English pound...

...or I'll swap you my 70-300 lens...?

How about my Nikon 70-300VR?

Hogster86 wrote in post #6181324
Oh god My wallet haaaaaaaates you Brett!!! It's bouncing around in my pocket like mad trying to escape! Foolish really as I know all my card details off by heart anyway

Hmmm I would prefer to get it from Kerso myself:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk …Q_trksidZp1742.​m153.l1262

Not too much dearer and based in the UK

Who knows .... maybe I can treat myself to one when I start working full-time in October!

David

Edit: Mitesh - I don't think I could justify the enormous extra cost and weight of the Sigma - I'm very pleased with the performance of the 100-400 myself FWIW that shot above was wide-open at 400mm at F5.6

Always Email kerso direct and don't buy form his web site, it is cheaper email, if you want his email pm me

Mitesh, You are right the 120-300 is better but a 1/2 Plus dearer but for what David uses it for and the weight of it, the extra 100mm is more advantageous, you can walk around with the 100-400 not so much with the 120-300 mm, IS also plays a part as well, I love my 120-300mm for sports but would pick up the 100-400L more so at wetlands

Ray.Petri wrote in post #6182225
100-400L IS grows on you although it may spend a lot of time in it's bag. The 70-200 f2.8L also grows on you but it seems you need to take them both out as they compliment each other. Can't describe it but, if I take the 100-400 out I wish I'd taken the 70-200 to get the best from the f2.8 and higher quality and if I take the 70-200 I wish I'd taken the 100-400 for the extra reach.
This leaves MaDProFFs dilemma on the size of the carrying bag - I suggest nicking a shopping trolley (take the B&Q or Asda label off though or you might have some explaining to do).

Siggy 200-500 2.8 the answer?

goatee wrote in post #6180908
I think the 50D looks like great value for money. The only area (from the specs) where it is weaker than the D300, is its AF, but given the price difference, it would be churlish to complain! I'm very excited to see how it performs!

Warehouse sExpress have it for about £150 more than the D300 on pre-order, so expect it to compete directly once prices stabilise. Looks over priced to me.

Really? I didn't check prices, but I understood it was less than the 40D when it was released, which was around (or less than) £700. For the £600-£700 mark, I think it would be perfect.

condyk wrote in post #6182343
Warehouse sExpress have it for about £150 more than the D300 on pre-order, so expect it to compete directly once prices stabilise. Looks over priced to me.

Depends on how it performs, the spec looks awesome, god only knows where all this is leading with in the Canon range,, you know I am in the thinking that Canon may even drop the new 5D, and replace it with a FF 1 series, priced around a 1D MK3, Canon have certainly caught me out on this 50D,,,, or a maybe 5D MK2 that will take EFS lenses, but if the 50D is 15 MP what is the 5D replacement gonna be?, so many variations now, anything could happen?

It Seems the 40D is not an upgrade as such, but a new camera out to compete with the D300,, and after reading Dpreview as well it is certainly a hell of a jump spec wise over a 40D