caseyjohnphotography wrote in post #7651148
I could easily go for the f/5.6, but from now on theres no point going half ass? when i know for a fact a few years on down the track i will end up getting the better version of whatever it will be. f/2.8 will be suitable for me as all my lenses (2) are f/2.8 and i normally shoot in low light conditions. So yeh i think I need it. I used a 400mm f/5.6 at the gold coast a few weeks back and to be honest the first thing i disliked was the build, feels like a little 75 300mm in your hands and is so lightweight and you can get your hand around it too easily. Not that is a big problem but was the first disadvantage that came to mind. The photos where sharp yes, but lack of IS at 400mm doesn't help in low light conditions also, neither does f/5.6
11k= way way way too much for me.....
If I see a beat up 300 2.8 (IS) going for a decent price I might buy it, but even that is probably too much....
The 400 5.6 is very nice, just with a 1.4 at f8 despite being very very sharp it is a bit slow and no IS is really annoying with the shake of AF points.... I find the build good, better than 24-70 IMO.... Just light as it doesn't have much glass in it....
In terms of sound I had some open design big sennheisers which were good, but they broke (old), and were ginormous....
We also have some (big) open ear sennheisers at school as monitors which are good
For serious sound go for EV speakers, crown amps, dbx eq/compressor LC fx, midas or yamaha mixer.... don't ask about price or size though
:p