Bite the Bullet
May 24, 2016 13:36:40 #
Getting ready to bite the bullet. Currently own a Canon 70-200L IS II. Need more reach. Looking at the Canon 100-400L IS. Should I bite the bullet and get it? Will use for shooting soccer and football.
May 24, 2016 14:01:57 #
Asking a hogger if you should get more gear is Like asking Michael Jackson if he likes little boys
May 24, 2016 14:06:57 #
Shutterbugsailer wrote:
Asking a hogger if you should get more gear is Like asking Michael Jackson if he likes little boys
Asking the hogger is a little easier-- unless you are having a seance'
May 24, 2016 14:08:20 #
Maik723 wrote:
Getting ready to bite the bullet. Currently own a Canon 70-200L IS II. Need more reach. Looking at the Canon 100-400L IS. Should I bite the bullet and get it? Will use for shooting soccer and football.
Get it!
BTW, curious about that avatar. FWIW, I learned to drive in a 1953 Desoto with a "semi-automatic" transmission.
May 24, 2016 19:16:32 #
Maik723 wrote:
Getting ready to bite the bullet. Currently own a Canon 70-200L IS II. Need more reach. Looking at the Canon 100-400L IS. Should I bite the bullet and get it? Will use for shooting soccer and football.
If you need more reach....., you need more reach! Not a whole lot of choice there.
ANY Canon product is among the best product you can get when it comes to durability, reliability, IQ and especially resale.
Personally if the 100-400 mkll is not a stretch for you its an excellent lens. If you want to spend a bit less, look at a mkl model, also an extremely good lens and a great value at used prices! Good luck!
PS, if you DO get to talk to MJ, find out if Brooke Shields DOES have his other glove?!?!
SS
May 24, 2016 22:41:02 #
May 24, 2016 22:41:50 #
Shutterbugsailer wrote:
Asking a hogger if you should get more gear is Like asking Michael Jackson if he likes little boys
Alright Dude.......Beat It.
May 25, 2016 06:35:12 #
May 25, 2016 06:51:35 #
Do it. It's an awesome lens! For a max. aperature of 4.5-5.6, it can take incredible shots, with lightning fast focus, at lower light than you'd think, especially with the excellent IS. Since you're not going to use it at extreme low light, you'll focus as fast as your 70-200. You WILL NOT be disappointed......
May 25, 2016 06:54:26 #
Shutterbugsailer wrote:
Asking a hogger if you should get more gear is Like asking Michael Jackson if he likes little boys
Now, Now let's be nice!!
May 25, 2016 07:36:33 #
tshift wrote:
Now, Now let's be nice!!
So sorry................ My wife made me do it.......her name is Billie Jean.
So sorry................ My wife made me do it.......her name is Billie Jean.
May 25, 2016 07:40:29 #
May 25, 2016 07:52:39 #
I have both lenses. Bought the 70-200 f/2.8 L II first and after buying the 100-400 L II I found that I had much less use for the 70-200. The 100-400 is that good. A bit bigger and heavier then the 70-200, but not by much. If it wasn't for the fact that it is a 2.8 and I can keep it mounted on my 6D with the 100-400 on my 7DII, I probably would have sold the 70-200 by now. The IQ, IS, and build of the 100-400 L II is superb.
May 25, 2016 08:30:28 #
May 25, 2016 08:59:49 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Get it!
BTW, curious about that avatar. FWIW, I learned to drive in a 1953 Desoto with a "semi-automatic" transmission.
BTW, curious about that avatar. FWIW, I learned to drive in a 1953 Desoto with a "semi-automatic" transmission.
I had one of those DeSoto's in 1958. My first car that was not a "junker".
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.