promocop Member  223 posts Joined Mar 2010 More info | Apr 25, 2010 19:48 | #1 SO..I go to my local camera store all set to buy it...NOT I thought it was WAY too heavy not very fast (inside) and a bit clumsy. What am I missing? I had buyers remorse and didn't even buy it! Shot off a bunch, took them home and thought...whats the big deal with this lens? Not impressed
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Apr 25, 2010 19:52 | #2 |
Mastamarek Goldmember  1,882 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2009 Location: Warsaw, Poland More info | Apr 25, 2010 19:57 | #3 why are people excited about it!? simple ... its the most advanced telephoto zoom lens on the planet. Great IQ and improved wide open performance at any focal length. also the term "heavy" is subjective. heavy comparing to what!? 200L 2.0? 400L? ^^ or to 50 f1.8 [Facebook®
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | Well, Iam quite impressed with mine. Perhaps it does not fit well with your style or subject type. It is however an significant advance over the first version. But, if you didnt need that one you probably wont need the new one either.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Well, I shoot with a 100-400 when I need that legth..BELIEVE me I intended to buy it...I wanted to love it...and I didnt!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Apr 25, 2010 20:12 | #6 Wow, you use a 100-400 and you thought the 70-200 was slow, heavy and clumsy? That's just weird. connecticut wedding photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mebailey Goldmember 1,992 posts Likes: 28 Joined Jul 2005 Location: USA More info | Apr 25, 2010 20:15 | #7 promocop wrote in post #10064647  Well, I shoot with a 100-400 when I need that legth..BELIEVE me I intended to buy it...I wanted to love it...and I didnt! Well, I wont try to convince you. On the bright side, you saved yourself $2500!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
no. I agree the 100-400 is heavy and clumsy...just use to it. Maybe tomorrow. But it is heavy right?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
theextremist04 Goldmember  1,224 posts Joined Feb 2010 Location: Kansas City More info | Apr 25, 2010 20:56 | #9 |
No. I'll take your word for it. Was at a Canon CPS seminar and maybe I had low blood sugar..Ill try again tomorrrow outside and give it another pass
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Snydremark my very own Lightrules moment More info | It isn't noticeably heavier than the 100-400, and the AF is MUCH faster. If you don't like it, no one's going to convince you otherwise; but I suspect you were doing something wrong - Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Apr 25, 2010 21:14 | #12 promocop wrote in post #10064747 But it is heavy right? Your 100-400 is about 3.1 lbs, and the 70-200 is about 3.3 lbs... little heavier but not a huge difference. connecticut wedding photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I'll retry tomorow..thanks
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Josepi Senior Member 281 posts Joined Mar 2010 More info | Apr 25, 2010 21:34 | #14 mebailey wrote in post #10064671 Well, I wont try to convince you. On the bright side, you saved yourself $2500!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
good advise!!!
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 is johntmyers418 1036 guests, 119 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
