acroporas 0 Posted January 30, 2008 Not really relevant to underwater photography. Though I would love to see someone try to use it underwater. I was reading canon's description on their web page, and I got to the last line and I just can't stop laughing. weighing just under 10 lbs....it's image stabilized, providing up to 4 stops of correction for camera shake. This makes it even more practical in many situations. Even more practical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rtrski 20 Posted January 30, 2008 Well, Mauna Loa's telescope just doesn't fit in one's back pocket. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
segal3 0 Posted January 30, 2008 I'm thinking...group buy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echeng 0 Posted January 30, 2008 I'm thinking...group buy? You mean, we all group together and buy one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
segal3 0 Posted January 30, 2008 That's the idea... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rtrski 20 Posted January 30, 2008 But I already sold my firstborn..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeVeitch 0 Posted January 30, 2008 I already own one.. Anyone wants to use it? Just let me know and i will forward you my paypal account info Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drew 0 Posted January 30, 2008 I don't know why... but it's REALLY a great lens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bartusderidder 0 Posted January 30, 2008 I already own one.. To spy on....Simon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmoss 0 Posted January 30, 2008 Why not just sell off most of our body parts and group buy this instead... The Monster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
acroporas 0 Posted January 31, 2008 Canon's description seems a bit more reasonable today, after Sigma's Announcement of their 15kg 200-500 F/2.8 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bacripe 0 Posted January 31, 2008 You know, to some people it doesn't seem reasonable. But for others, it makes great sense. I for one will probably get one, because for my two mains sources of photography income (sports and wildlife) it is a great lens. It will be sharper than a 400/2.8 with a 2x or even a 600/4 with a 1.4, and weighs less than the 600. 10lbs is hand-holdable for me. I regularly hand-hold a 400/2.8 (11.7lbs) with a Canon 1D mkIIn/mkIII and do fine. I have hoped for this lens - I was reluctant to buy a 600/4, despite liking it very much, because the 400 takes a 1.4x converter very well. For football, for example, a 70-200 (or just 200), 400, 800 would be a great combination. For wildlife, an 800 would be a great lens for many applications. So, in short, it actually is a practical lens :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davichin 18 Posted January 31, 2008 These guys at BH are funny: "Included with this lens is a leather slip-on 'lens cap', a fitted aluminum trunk case, and a prodigious measure of ego satisfaction. Weighing in at over 36lbs and an overall length of 33 inches, a sturdy tripod and pan/tilt head is highly recommended. Pack mule not included." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UWphotoNewbie 1 Posted January 31, 2008 For wildlife photographers just get this one instead: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp Note the loops on the top of the lens. Those are where you attach the crane..... Combine the f2.8 @ 500mm and high ISO performance of the new cameras I can't wait to see the pictures that is capable of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Williams 0 Posted January 31, 2008 I liked Scott Kelby's definition of a sport's photographer. If you ask how much it costs, you aren't one. He was kidding, I think Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
