WhyWhyZed From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, RR: 18 Posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2869 times:
Exactly what the title says. We're all constantly upgrading our equipment to increase quality and focal length, so I'm sure you saving up money for some specific gear.
Martin21 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2001, 346 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2865 times:
I have Minolta gear. Would be very expensive to move to Canon. And I don't have the money. So I hope Sony would invest in dSLR and I will save for a nice 70-200 2.8 SSM !
Tin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 266 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2850 times:
I have no reason ( or should I say money) to buy a lens in the near future, but the one on my must have list is a Canon EF300mm f/2.8 IS L to replace my f/4.0 version.
If Sigma have sorted out their 300 f/2.8 (I had one before) I may consider that again as it was optically superb, just let down my poor build and rubbish auto-focus.
Willo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
I have had a Sigma 100-300EX on order since the beginning of January. I checked today and Sigma still can't tell my supplier when they will have stock in the UK
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2835 times:
Later on this month I'll be purchasing a Sigma 50-500 and probably a Canon 17-40L.
Dullesguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2831 times:
When I get my job in the Tower or Center..who knows what the FAA will be doing! I'm gonna get the 100-400L. My school budget isn't allowing for any kind of upgrades right about now. I just love the idea of having that extra reach of 400mm
Stephen
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
JRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4598 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2826 times:
No lenses planned in the near future (upgrading the body from the 300D to the 20DmkII (or whatever it will be called)), but the 17-55 f/2.8 (providing canon finally follows nikons example) and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS are on the wishlist
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
Interpaul From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
I just ordered the Canon 400mm 5.6 prime because the 100-400 is a little soft at the long end. That lens is said to be very sharp even if you use a 1,4 TC. No IS though.
SoBe From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 256 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2786 times:
In '04 I bought the 70-200 f2.8 VR. Now I'm saving up for the 200-400 f4 VR. I'll be saving for a while. Should have bought it when I had the cash in my hand before getting married!!
Dullesguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2772 times:
Jan,
I don't want to start a whole big debate about this, but could you elaborate a tad on "little soft". Was it bearable when using full zoom at 400mm on action shots? I just wanna know b/c i'm set on getting this lense when I get the money..but if the softness is that big a issue i'll save even more for the 70-200. i just want that zoom!
Stephen
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
Interpaul From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
Don't get me wrong. It's an awesome piece of glass and its great versatility is beyond doubt. Very sharp, if you're using it in the 100-300mm range, that is.
But I found myself using it at 400mm most of the time and the results were OK but just not as sharp as I wanted them to be. But of course it's up to you what you expect of a lens.
However, it's still capable of producing very crisp pictures.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2747 times:
Of course it's not a prime, but the softness isn't too bad.
No need to open the plugged shot, it's about the small image underneath, a 100% crop on a 10D. You can still read the "CJ 375" (although slightly compressed by Photobucket). (1/320s f8 400mm)
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 26 Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2668 times:
Now I've recently picked up a 20D, I'm in need of a wide-angle zoom: I was debating between the 16-35 and the 17-40, but I'll probably wait 'till after the PMA (where Canon might announce something new). I'm also looking for a high-quality fast prime for indoor action shooting: I was looking at the 135 f2.0 but it might be a little long (and quite expensive), so I'll probably settle for a 85 f1.8 which is rumored to be a terrific lens, and which won't take too big a dent out of my wallet. Except of course if I would find a good second-hand 200 f1.8...
Actually, it depends a little on the number of photo sales that will materialize...
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 26 Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2665 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 14): Of course it's not a prime, but the softness isn't too bad.
Indeed, Ed, I also find the 100-400 to be a solid performer, even flat out at 400mm. Yet I often see people shooting wide-open at f/5.6 at 400mm with this lens, no wonder the shots might turn out a little blurry .
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
Quoting Willo (Reply 6): I have had a Sigma 100-300EX on order since the beginning of January. I checked today and Sigma still can't tell my supplier when they will have stock in the UK
Gary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2620 times:
tamron 90mm macro, sod all to do with aviation but you asked
25 Kereru: Just got a Nikon 80-400mm VR lens so no more lenses for a while. D200 body is the next big price item. A 77mm Polariser is on the short list for now a
26 AndrewUber: I finally upgraded to "L" recently, and purchased the 70-200 F4 L. It is amazing - what a HUGE difference from the 75-300 IS. I do miss the Image Stab
27 Mich: 70-200 2.8L next purchase soon. The 24-105mm f/4L IS USM may be first though for a good walk around the 24-70 just dont reach far enough in certain pl
28 Kereru: Yes, and that 18-200mm VR is on my wish list for that same reason. Will have to wait till the later part of this year. Cheers.
29 PlymSpotter: Have just purchased the 170-500 Sigma, haven't tried it out yet on fast moving aircraft, but the first shots with it even at full zoom have been comin
30 7FTwinOtter: Most likely a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 pre ai lens for my F. or a Helios-103 for my contax II
31 WhyWhyZed: Same strategy and same feelings as me. - Jason DePodesta
32 Cruiser: This summer I am going to get the Canon 100-400 L IS. That, and I have been thinking about something on the shorter end. Hmmm, B&H might get a big ord
33 Fergulmcc: Either the 300mm L'IS f2.8 or the 400mm L'IS f2.8 Fergul
34 JRadier: pfff, lousy lenses (wish I had the money :P)
35 Fergulmcc: Not really, stick a x2 TC with either of them and you will still have AF on a 20D, a lot chaeper than getting a 600mm f4! The 400 f2.8 is a cracking
37 Chris78cpr: For me it shall be either a 24-105F4LIS to give me a good mid range lens. Or i may just go for a D200 and a 18-200VR Chris
38 WhyWhyZed: I'm actually surprised that a lot of people are shooting for the 24-105 f/4. I've read a lot of reviews on it and ALOT of people complain about lens f
40 Chris78cpr: I have read those reviews. I have also used the lens on my main cameras and i know that for what i want it produces absolutely stunning results! Dont
41 Skidmarks: Next lens I hope to get will be Nikon's 18-200 VR along with the D200. This will replace my trusty 28-200. Andy
42 Aviopic: Chris will you please take note of this topic Canon 24-105 L USM. Opinions? (by Cosec59 Jan 30 2006 in Aviation Photography) and tell me what my erro
43 Jwenting: I agree Chris, though there are of course always differences in quality between individual models and even samples. That said: Over on the Nikonians f
44 Jwenting: My next lens will likely be an 85mm f/1.8 AF-D Nikkor. After that I'm in the market for a new long tele, brand and type undecided (but likely either a
45 Aviopic: I might agree too if he backed up his statement. In my view it is quite a statement about the rest of the world which still might be right but heee t
46 Chris78cpr: Willem, I had a quick look at your posts in that thread and the first pic looks ok. At 200% in those lighting conditions you can expect to see some CA
48 Aviopic: Thanks Chris. After more then 30 years in photography I am arrogant enough to say "I know" Don't wanna say to much about it here 'cos we are off topic
49 Chris78cpr: Ahhh good to here Willem. You sound very expeirianced then! I am only 20 but know a little and am always trying to learn more. I do think that fringin
50 Skidmarks: Man, you hit the proverbial nail right on the head there! Andy
51 Chris78cpr: Lol, cheers Andy! It's so easy to see though when you actually talk to someone who hasnt got a clue. I remember shooting at Disney World in Orlando a
52 JeffM: What really sounds funny is that you paid $4500 for a $3500 MkII, and then to top it off you use it to take photos of the Disney Parade.....LOL...tha
53 Chris78cpr: Jeff, Do me a favour, pull you bloody neck in. Firstly, i own a 1dmkii as my MAIN camera. I shoot other stuff as well as aviation. Yes i will shoot a
54 F9Widebody: Well, my next lens depends on what strategy I decide to pursue with photography. I'll either spend alot and opt for the 100-400, or I'll budget my mon
55 Jwenting: Sigma has an 80-400 as well which is quite good
56 Sulman: Yes, using a camera to take pictures. Whatever next.
57 Chris78cpr: I know, any one would think i was being stupid using my camera to take a picture, and shock horror of something i enjoy!
58 JeffM: Your right Chris, I thought that about you before I read that. LOL.. I could care less what you paid for your camera. Abuse? Yea, that's what the jok
59 Chris78cpr: Pull your bloody neck in was what i wrote instead of writing something that would get me a sizeable ban here. Frankly, reading your petty comments doe
60 Mirrodie: wow, great idea for a thread. I just got Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM along with my first dslr, the Canon 20 D But i have an 28-80 and 80-200
61 JeffM: Mirrodie, if you just got the 100-400L you won't be satisfied with the 50-500. And Chris, no need for the personal attack, the image I had of you run
62 Jwenting: Well, I've heard horror stories about the 100-400L, especially about rather poor edge sharpness and distortion on 35mm film and digital sensors. On A
63 Sulman: I want to get a replacement for the 18-55 EFS at some point. I'm using it alot more frequently for non-aviation stuff, and much as I like it (it's a 1
65 JRadier: could you please explain why? with a study perhaps where a large number of people was questioned and most of them weren't satisfied with the 50-500 a
66 JeffM: Sure Jurgen. It's based on my personal opinion, I've seen no "study" of people questioned about this...have you? I tried the inexpensive 50-500 numer
67 JRadier: those 2 words show that it is an opinion (nothing wrong with that), but don't say someone won't be happy with the 50-500 after the 100-400. It is, as
68 Mirrodie: gentleman, please, its how you use the lens, not the size of it I like mine and just need a good walkabout lens now. thanks.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2001, 346 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
