From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-04-28 09:26:52 -0600, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> said:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:00:46 -0500, the P&S troll wrote:
>
>>> Try the new 2.8 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x extender. Yes I know
>>> it's f5.6 and not f4, but the price and weight difference may be worth
>>> it.
>>>
>>> But, yup! I like that lens.
>>
>> Or get any of the superzoom P&S cameras and you'll increase the
>> focal-length reach and enlarge the aperture by 3-fold
> ...
>> Any difference in ISO performance is made up
>> in 3 times more aperture
>
> Name _one_ superzoom with an aperture of 150mm (f/4 at 200mm x3) diameter.

Seriously, you cannot tell that this guy is just playing you? Leave him alone.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: Peter on
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2010050609593643658-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
> On 2010-04-28 05:17:13 -0600, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>> I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>
> I think I will stick with the 400mm f/2.8, even though the 200-400 f/4 is
> arguably more useful. I like having the extra stop to work with when using
> teleconverters. If I ever free up enough cash for another super-telephoto,
> I am more likely to go even longer rather than getting the zoom.
>
> I have no doubt, though, that this is a great lens.
>


The 400 f2.8 is a great lens. But, outside my budget right now, so I go as
previously posted.

--
Peter

From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-05-06 14:41:46 -0600, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:

> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:2010050609593643658-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-04-28 05:17:13 -0600, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>>
>> I think I will stick with the 400mm f/2.8, even though the 200-400 f/4
>> is arguably more useful. I like having the extra stop to work with when
>> using teleconverters. If I ever free up enough cash for another
>> super-telephoto, I am more likely to go even longer rather than getting
>> the zoom.
>>
>> I have no doubt, though, that this is a great lens.
>>
>
>
> The 400 f2.8 is a great lens. But, outside my budget right now, so I go
> as previously posted.

Yeah, I don't know how I ever got that one past the ways and means
committee in our house.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: me on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:59:36 -0600, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2010-04-28 05:17:13 -0600, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>> I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>
>I think I will stick with the 400mm f/2.8, even though the 200-400 f/4
>is arguably more useful. I like having the extra stop to work with when
>using teleconverters. If I ever free up enough cash for another
>super-telephoto, I am more likely to go even longer rather than getting
>the zoom.
>
>I have no doubt, though, that this is a great lens.


I carry this beast around a lot and had hold 99.99995% of my shots. I
doubt I would be able to do this with the 400 f/2.8. Which is why I
chose the 200-400 f/4 over the 400 f/2.8 when I made the purchase,
fwiw.
From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-05-06 18:25:55 -0600, me <me(a)mine.net> said:

> On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:59:36 -0600, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-04-28 05:17:13 -0600, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>>
>> I think I will stick with the 400mm f/2.8, even though the 200-400 f/4
>> is arguably more useful. I like having the extra stop to work with when
>> using teleconverters. If I ever free up enough cash for another
>> super-telephoto, I am more likely to go even longer rather than getting
>> the zoom.
>>
>> I have no doubt, though, that this is a great lens.
>
>
> I carry this beast around a lot and had hold 99.99995% of my shots. I
> doubt I would be able to do this with the 400 f/2.8. Which is why I
> chose the 200-400 f/4 over the 400 f/2.8 when I made the purchase,
> fwiw.

Yeah, I rarely take handheld shots with the 400 f/2.8. I use a tripod
with a Wimberly head. I will also use a shoulder mount when the tripod
is impractical. I have used it handheld, but it is not fun. Still, when
that mountain sheep suddenly appears and it is not going to hang around
while you set up the tripod, you get the shot, eh? It may be painful to
use the 400 f/2.8 handheld, but it is by no means impossible. And let's
face it, the only reason it is painful to me is that I have severe
arthritis in my hands, shoulders, and lower back. Most people don't
have that.

Generally, though, I plan better than that. My tripod is in place long
before the subject generally appears.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor