Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5315 times:
I havent used this lens but the reviews are good for the most part. The downfalls being mostly price related. I have used the now discontinued 35-350mm L. It offers good quality with a huge zoom range.
Brick From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1572 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Yeah, I haven't figured out yet if I'm going to whore myself out to 100 fat chicks for $22 each or 10 really fat chicks for $220 each to pay for this.
The main things I am curious about...how is the sharpeness when fully zoomed? What happens when you put a 1.4 converter on it? I have the 100-400mm right now as my primary lens. I love it, but it is no longer a good match for the airports that I commonly shoot at since I went digital. It's also soft once I get above 350mm.
It'd be nice to put a lens on my camera and leave it on...
CJA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5232 times:
Quoting Brick (Reply 2): What happens when you put a 1.4 converter on it?
Sadly you cant use a teleconverter with this lens only an extender.
I am not the best at photprocessing but all of my pictures on this site were taken using this lens apart from the MD-80.
I hate to disagree with Darren but I think its worth every penny and is at least as good as a 100-400 but perhaps not quite up to the 70-200mm. But if you want the flexibility this lens offers by having an 11x zoom you will not be disappointed. Its also dust and moisture proof.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 46 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5154 times:
I had the pleasure of Meeting (Bailey) when he was here in Sydney last as i was struggling with my kens at the time he offered to lend me his lens which was the 28-300L i took a truck load of shots with it and have to say the quality and sharpness is just as good as the 100-400.
Here is some of the images i took on that day .
Thanks once again for the use of the lens Keven.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5060 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 10): I can't say it is very nice to hang around with two bodies. I did that last June, and it wasn't comfortable.
Well, with the 500mm, I wouldn't have it any other way. You dont put that lens on the camera, you put the camera on the lens. Two bodies is the only way to go. I attended two airshows and suddenly it struck me with a vengeance "You need another camera body!"
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 22 Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5047 times:
Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 13): Well, with the 500mm, I wouldn't have it any other way. You dont put that lens on the camera, you put the camera on the lens. Two bodies is the only way to go. I attended two airshows and suddenly it struck me with a vengeance alert "You need another camera body!"
What about having one body with the 50-500?
Just joking. Yes, you need more than two bodies for an airshow with aircraft from (for example) the sizes An-225 to C152.
Nevertheless, the 28-300 is told to be pretty good, but I don't need it. Maybe it is for you, Brick, but it's pretty heavy. Heavier than the 70-200 2.8 IS AFAIK.