I hope this will be worth it!

jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
edited June 13, 2010 in Cameras
Selling my *beloved* 70-200/4LIS, 100-400L, and 1DIIN to fund a 70-200/2.8LIS Mark II.

I figure the 1DIIN is approaching the point of no return in terms of resale value. The 100-400 I just don't use that much.

Holy sticker shock batman!! Just pulled the trigger. She arrives Wednesday.
-Jack

An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.

Comments

  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited June 7, 2010
    Have fun with that one!!
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited June 7, 2010
    Yeah, the reviews at B&H and dpreview say the II is sharper than the old version, so I'm pretty psyched. I hope it's at least as sharp as my f/4. I used to say I'd never sell that baby, even to buy an f/2.8, but two points to that - 1, I was spoiled by the beautiful backgrounds from the 300/2.8 I rented, so much so that the bg from the f/4 seemed not so OOF all of a sudden; and 2, I can't afford to keep both the f/4 and f/2.8 II. So I'll try this thing for a while, I hope the images justify the weight and cost.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited June 8, 2010
    It sure looks sharper, here's a comparison (hover over the chart to see
    the difference). Try the 400mm setting (with 2x Extender) too:

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited June 8, 2010
    That test chart comparison is profound! However I have to take them with a grain of salt, because looking at that chart one might thing the 100-400 is a bad, soft lens. It's not.

    2s64hvq.jpg

    22dy06.jpg
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited June 8, 2010
    jmphotocraft wrote: »
    That test chart comparison is profound! However I have to take them with a grain of salt, because looking at that chart one might thing the 100-400 is a bad, soft lens. It's not.

    I completely agree! I usualy go looking at charts after reading the field
    reviews. The 100-400 is no slouch for sure. If one prefers a 100-400 to
    a 70-200 w/ 2x TC is bound to be a subjective choice.

    I chose the new 70-200 + TCs over the 100-400 because it can act as
    a fast 70-200, a very nice flower lens with 1.4x TC and it's 1.2m MFD
    (similar to the 300mm f/4.0 L IS) and a very acceptable 160-400mm for
    the ocasional visit to the zoo or tight landscape shot.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • ZingoZingo Registered Users Posts: 2 Beginner grinner
    edited June 13, 2010
    jmphotocraft - how much did you pay (and from where did you get it) if you don't mind me asking?
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited June 13, 2010
    Zingo wrote: »
    jmphotocraft - how much did you pay (and from where did you get it) if you don't mind me asking?

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Sign In or Register to comment.