Tweet
@redrage: FANTASTIC post there and another great shot. You are THE wildlife photographer of xBhp atleast! 
My PRIMARY usage will not be wildlife shots, that I can see from the kind of use that I have been putting my present lenses to. Although the 100-400, when put on an 1.6x APS-C censored body, becomes a phenomenal 160 - 640mm lens, I think I would be better off with the 70-200mm f2.8L NON IS. A 640mm lens having an aperture of 5.6 sounds REALLY tempting but then again the primary usage has to be kept in mind, which for me won't really be wildlife. Yes, I do like to shoot wildlife at times, but it is not my primary requirement for sure. That, I can see.
75-80k is a budget that more or less I will have whenever I plan to get one. And 55k for the NON-IS version makes me want to go for the IS version (@ 75-80k)!
Anyhow, that was a lovely, short and to the point review and thanks a ton for all the time and effort that you have put in. And do keep sharing such wonderful bird photographs with us here.
My PRIMARY usage will not be wildlife shots, that I can see from the kind of use that I have been putting my present lenses to. Although the 100-400, when put on an 1.6x APS-C censored body, becomes a phenomenal 160 - 640mm lens, I think I would be better off with the 70-200mm f2.8L NON IS. A 640mm lens having an aperture of 5.6 sounds REALLY tempting but then again the primary usage has to be kept in mind, which for me won't really be wildlife. Yes, I do like to shoot wildlife at times, but it is not my primary requirement for sure. That, I can see.
75-80k is a budget that more or less I will have whenever I plan to get one. And 55k for the NON-IS version makes me want to go for the IS version (@ 75-80k)!
Anyhow, that was a lovely, short and to the point review and thanks a ton for all the time and effort that you have put in. And do keep sharing such wonderful bird photographs with us here.
Comment