Yes sorry- glass limo.
I have the Lowerpro 600 AW and in all fairness the 500 with a 1DX MKII on it fitted lovely with just enough space above for both the tc's. The 300 with the adaptor and 1.4x tc and R3 takes up about the same space.Thanks very much.
Yeah, I think that’s the one I meant.
Their library photos used for it seem to show quite a snug fit with the 500.
So it’ll obviously be no good with the adapter too. Let alone with the possibility of a 1.4x attached as well at some point…
The Lowepro 600 aw trekker looks a good bet. But I think that may bury it - and be a bit too overkill
Vanguard backpacks are very comfortable, if that helps with the decision making. I have the Alta Sky 51D. Great bag.
So I thought I’d made a decision on the 300mm f2.8 until I went to buy one. The size and weight feelings came flooding back. I’d likely need a tripod so that adds an extra 3kg so 6+kg to cart around.
I feel your pain....
F5.6 is potentially the issue in low light so the 500mm f5.6 probably would be similar to the 100-400 but a just little longer. The canon f4 is still £5k used so im not use I’d put it in the affordable bracket. I’d expect the new 400mm f4 do to be £7-8k, likely the same on Nikon if they release one.
I doubt if Nikon release a 400 f4 pf that it'll be anywhere close to 7-8k. Their 500 5.6 is circa 3.5k and the 800 6.3 is a little over 6... I'd imagine, given the price delta between the 300 f4 pf and the 300 2.8 (6k-2k) I'd like to think the 400 f4 will be circa 4.5k, we'll have to see!
I guess it depends on the construction. going by canons prices the 400 f4 is more expensive than the 300 f2.8. If the construction is similar to the 800 f6.3 I could see it being slightly lower than the 300 f2.8/800 f6.3 I guess we will see.
I’m now thinking ISO6400 probably isn’t so bad with modern tech compared to camera tech from a few (5-8) years ago. I don’t have the issue of trying to throw close up fences out of focus, it’s just a case of trying to keep shutter speed up to at least 1/500 (that’s my minimum for moving wildlife). It works out I’m at ISO6400 about 20% of the time when trying to keep 1/500 minimum so it isn’t so bad.
I owned the EF100-400 for a while and the only negative i found was sometimes the bokeh was horrible and the A/F not as quick or snappy as the 300 f2.8 MKII.
I’ve decided to order the 100-500. The benefits of the 300mm f2.8 (fast AF, aperture, bokeh) are generally outweighed by the size, weight and versatility of the 100-500 focal length without using teleconverters which can be a pain to change at times. I can roughly overlook the benefits the 300mm f2.8 gives but it’s much harder to overlook the size and weight issues for me. Hopefully I should be able to work around the issues the maximum f5.6 aperture causes.
You're sure the 200-400 with built-in TC is too much weight? I'm just getting used to it now and so far seems great and not too heavy. I'm liking the extra light and TC at the flick of a switch.
Heart says I’d love a 200-400+TC but head says no. i had the Nikon 200-400 a few years back. At 3.6kg i wasnt able to properly hand hold it so that meant carrying a tripod which added another 3kg not to mention a much bigger bag. That meant I’d not it out on trips because the weight put me off carrying it as I didn't enjoy carting it about.
I think they mean depth of field which would be affected by aperture. The two are often confused considering both start with f and it’s often referred to as DoF.
I have used it in basketball under less than ideal lighting; we list our professional team so the big lights don’t come on any more. It works well; I am selling my 1DX2 I think and see if I miss the speed; won’t miss the weight.
I might be interested in the 1dx depending on price - i'm in Worcester.
I’ve dithered over selling my 1DXM2 it was for sale then I took it back… I think it’s time to box it up again.
Looks like you might have a customer! (Not me).
i am selling to MPB today, hopefully. if not, probably trade in. Tim looks like he might be selling.
Enjoy!
Thanks yes the EF L version
