|
Re: what about a 70-200 1.5x f/2.8 ??
In reply to bigfatron,
3 months ago
|
bigfatron wrote:
Thorbard wrote:
Size and weight would definitely kill this lens for most people. And how long has it taken Canon to develop the 200-400??
I had the now-discontinued 100-300 f4 EX Sigma lens and that was physically big, weighed just shy of 1.5kg and was plenty enough to lug around all day. I couldn't see the lens being proposed being any lighter.
And to add my two cents I don't see the point of having the bulk and weight and complexity of an inbuilt TC + mechanism on a lens that (relatively) short. If you're going to build a 300mm f4 zoom then skip the TC nonsense and build a 300mm f4 zoom.
I still borrow and use that very same lens, and like you say, you definitely know about it when you're using it all day. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the optical design is already based on a 70-200+TC with minor refinements.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months ago | 1 | ||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | 1 | ||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago |