Recent content by stickytape

Andrew - welcome back! It's Lawrence - you may remember from the photography onetoones at Arndale! :) Feel free to drop me a message

I had a 200-800 for a bit. And at the same time the 100-500. 100-500 is far better I found, and even with the 2x converter which I use frequently with it, is very sharp and I’d say - better than the 200-800. I use it on an R8 :)

this is an old one to resurrect.. but here we go! I have some beef with this individual, who is not only a scamming photographer (wannabe) but is also a crooked ebay person. Apart from the obvious company house details, anyone got any further contact? I have a phone number and a physical address...

Few more.. admittedly not in flight many but the AF does not drop in speed or accuracy.

Very happy with my 100-500, and with the 2x converter. Tremendously sharp images, used on an R8

I bought a 100-500 lens and thats what I had on it as well. Tracks to an address in Manchester. I am curious to know the margins they have on all this stuff and how they get around it.. Not complaining, the less tax we pay the better of course.

Very much an itch; R5 Mark 1 or R6 Mark III.. or save for R5 Mark II! Head says the R6 Mark IIII would be the best bet really/. had an R5 years ago, and it was good, only got rid to release some funds. Most recent R I've used it the R8 which was very good.. Just got some nice RF lens still...

Back on the Panasonic came with a G9 ii and Leica 100-400… few photos from the last couple weeks.

I have the 100-300 Panasonic and do find it sharper than the 75-300 which I had a while back - as a test. However I used it on an OM-1. I’ve now switched to Panasonic, and am using a 100-400 and the 100-300 - which is good, no complaints. Only OM lens I have is the macro lens (90mm I think it...

That sounds so nice!