| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/25/2005 02:16:38 AM · #1 |
he took number 1 for the 70-200 F/4 L
Message edited by author 2005-07-25 02:17:09.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:22:08 AM · #2 |
woot woot, i just purchased that lens myself, received it thursday!
 |
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:24:24 AM · #3 |
does that lens come with a tripod collar?
because the 2.8 versions of it do
|
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:25:09 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
does that lens come with a tripod collar?
because the 2.8 versions of it do |
no, unfortunately not, that is a 120$ accessory.
luckily the lens is so light that until you are using long exposure its not often needed. |
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:26:41 AM · #5 |
hmm thats odd, well i guess its ligher because of its F4 not 2.8
the 2.8's weigh about as much as michael jackson's conscience
|
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:27:18 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
the 2.8's weigh about as much as michael jackson's conscience |
really? i thought the 2.8 was supposed to be heavy
Message edited by author 2005-07-25 02:27:37.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:27:48 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
hmm thats odd, well i guess its ligher because of its F4 not 2.8
the 2.8's weigh about as much as michael jackson's conscience |
haha good one, yeah the f/4 only weight 1.56 lbs. |
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:30:26 AM · #8 |
The 2.8 is a MUCH bigger lens than the 4.0. I checked them both out at the store. Mine is supposed to be here Monday (the 4.0 that is). I don't feel a real need for speed in this range, and I get a lot of my shots by hiking places, so I opted for the 4.0... I didn't see a need for the tripod collar either.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:31:55 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The 2.8 is a MUCH bigger lens than the 4.0. I checked them both out at the store. Mine is supposed to be here Monday (the 4.0 that is). I don't feel a real need for speed in this range, and I get a lot of my shots by hiking places, so I opted for the 4.0... I didn't see a need for the tripod collar either.
Robt. |
heck i use the collar all the time, but i dont use the 2.8 feature all that much, not sharp enough at time, i like then 7.1-9.0 range
|
|
|
|
07/25/2005 02:39:53 AM · #10 |
| My critique: Overall, nice photo. Great subject (Canon). If I have any suggestion, I would try to clear up the slight fuzziness on the left side of the camera body - probably caused by extreme excitement of having the new lens. Speaking of the lens, nice capture. ;-P |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 01:50:55 AM EDT.
