wxwax wrote: I think so. I think it's the 300 f2.8 with a fugly lens hood.
ian408 wrote: The tripod mount on a 300 is not as long. I think it might be a 400 non-IS. Ian
wxwax wrote: You're right about the tripod mount.
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Ian
You're right about the tripod mount.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
it easily.
Ian